Brown v Ministry of Defence

Brown v Ministry of Defence

The correct approach to assessing damages for loss of pension rights is to evaluate the statistical likelihood of the claimant serving for various periods (6, 12, and 22 years), and to aggregate the value of pension rights lost at each stage, reflecting the probability of each outcome. The lower courts erred by treating the likelihood of full service and promotion as certainties rather than probabilities. The award for disadvantage in the labour market should be reduced to reflect the limited risk and impact evidenced.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Jennifer Anne Brown; Defendant/appellant: Ministry of Defence
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Second Appeal
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Assessment of Damages, Loss of Pension Rights, Future Earnings, Personal Injury Compensation
Tort Law Personal Injury Employment Law Assessment of Damages Loss of Pension Rights Future Earnings Personal Injury Compensation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jennifer Anne Brown

Claimant/respondent

Ministry of Defence

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Second Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How should damages for loss of pension rights be assessed when a claimant is injured during military service?
  2. 2 What is the correct approach to evaluating the likelihood of future events affecting damages, such as length of service and promotion?
  3. 3 Is there sufficient evidence to support an award for disadvantage in the labour market due to injury?

Ratio Decidendi

The correct approach to assessing damages for loss of pension rights is to evaluate the statistical likelihood of the claimant serving for various periods (6, 12, and 22 years), and to aggregate the value of pension rights lost at each stage, reflecting the probability of each outcome. The lower courts erred by treating the likelihood of full service and promotion as certainties rather than probabilities. The award for disadvantage in the labour market should be reduced to reflect the limited risk and impact evidenced.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Damages for loss of pension rights to be recalculated based on probabilities: 100% for 6 years, 50% for 12 years, 30% for 22 years, with 15% uplift for chance of promotion to WO1.
  • Award for disadvantage in the labour market restored but reduced to £5,000.