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.
Case numbers: CAF/3206/2013 ENT/00328/2010, CAF/3211/2013 ENT/00129/2010, CAF/3214/2013 ENT/00078/2010, CAF/3217/2013 ENT/00723/2010, CAF/3220/2013 ENT/00065/2010, CAF/3226/2013 ENT/00279/2010, CAF/3229/2013 ENT/00039/2010, CAF/3232/2013 ENT/00658/2010, CAF/3237/2013 ENT/00054/2010, CAF/3242/2013 ENT/00751/2007, CAF/3059/2013 ENT/00176/2010, CAF/3055/2013 ENT/00088/2010
Directions as a consequence of that decision will be given at or after a further hearing on a date to be fixed before Charles J with a time estimate of a day.
Two working days before the date fixed for that hearing the parties are to exchange statements setting out the directions they respectively seek together with skeleton arguments in support thereof.
(1) These appeals were heard over 10 days and involved the consideration of a large amount of documents, authorities and arguments.� They relate to claims made under Article 41 of the Naval Military and Air Forces etc (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 2006 (the SPO) based on the impact on the claimants of the British atomic tests carried out in the 1950s and early 1960s.
(2) Although the reasons for my decision that follow are lengthy their kernel can be stated shortly and I hope that such a statement will assist the reader to follow them.
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.