Watson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (II): [2025] UKUT 365 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Stout on 23 October 2025.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
The appellant is a former professional footballer who has diagnoses of probable Alzheimer’s Dementia and probable Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, which he contends were caused by accidents arising out of and in the course of his employment so as to entitle him to Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. The Secretary of State, and the First-tier Tribunal, accepted that the appellant had suffered ten specific, documented accidents during matches that took place between 1971 and 1983, but concluded that these had not caused his degenerative brain condition so that he was not entitled to Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit. Rather, the First-tier Tribunal concluded that the effective causes of his degenerative brain condition included: (i) other undocumented incidents; (ii) routine heading of the ball; and (iii) a family history of dementia. The Upper Tribunal upholds the appeal and gives guidance as to the approach to be taken in such cases to the concepts of “injury”, “causation” and “accident”. The Upper Tribunal decides that the First-tier Tribunal in this case in particular erred in law by: (1) Considering the claim only by reference to the ten specific, documented accidents referred to in the claim forms. Applying Miah v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2024] EWCA Civ 186, [2024] 1 WLR 3012, the First-tier Tribunal’s task was to decide, on the basis of the evidence before it (which may include evidence that was not before the Secretary of State), whether the claimant had, at the time of the Secretary of State’s decision under appeal, suffered personal injury caused by an accident or accidents that occurred during the course of employment. The First-tier Tribunal should accordingly have considered whether the other undocumented incidents were accidents and, if so, whether, together with the documented accidents, they materially contributed to the nature or extent of his loss of faculty; (2) Failing to give adequate reasons for its conclusions that: (i) the undocumented incidents; and (ii) routine heading of the ball were effective causes of the appellant’s condition, but that the more significant head impacts that were documented at the time made no material contribution to the nature or extent of his loss of faculty; and, (3) Perversely concluding that the appellant’s family history of dementia was an effective cause of his loss of faculty in circumstances where the evidence in that respect was limited and the only members of the appellant’s family who had dementia were also former professional footballers.