Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal sitting at Birmingham on 19 March 2014 under references AFCS/00472/2013 did not involve any error on a material point of law and is not set aside.
This appeal raises one central issue, namely what is meant by the word �persistent� in the statutory context of Item 27 of Table 2 in Schedule 3 to the Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) Order 2011 (the �AFCS Order 2011�).� The full Description of injury and its effects in Item 27 of Table 2 is:
� Non-freezing cold injury with persistent local neuropathic pain and severe compromise of mobility or dexterity, and evidence of permanent damage to small nerves on thermal threshold testing. �
This carries a tariff level of 10. The lower the tariff number the higher the level of award made under the AFCS Order 2011, and its predecessor. The tribunal found the appellant only satisfied Item 55 with a (lower award) tariff level of 13.
By a review decision dated 17 July 2011 the Secretary of State placed the appellant�s claimed condition of � cold injury to hands and feet � in Item 55 of Table 2 in Schedule 3 to the AFCS Order 2011. The wording of Item 65 is:
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.