RB v Secretary of State for Defence (WP): [2026] UKUT 117 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Brewer on 12 March 2026.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
The Pensions Appeal Tribunal materially erred in law by treating the appellant’s challenge solely as an appeal under section 1 Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943 (the entitlement appeal) rather than also as a section 5 appeal (the assessment appeal). The decision under challenge (20 June 2024) was a review of an existing assessment, and the appellant’s notice of appeal and case as advanced clearly raised issues of deterioration and degree of disablement relating to already accepted conditions. The tribunal therefore had jurisdiction, and was required, to apply the statutory framework governing reviews and assessment of disablement under the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943 and Articles 42 and 44 of the Naval, Military and Air Forces Etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 2006 (SI 2006/606). Its failure to do so amounted to a material error of law, requiring the decision to be set aside and the case remitted for a complete rehearing with no findings preserved.
The Court of Appeal in Tickle v BBC [2025] EWCA Civ 42 reaffirmed that judges and panel members must be identified in their published decisions save in exceptional circumstances; the Pensions Appeal Tribunal’s failure to record the names of the judge and panel in its decision of 4 February 2025 was inconsistent with that principle and the practice should not be followed.