DAMILOLA JOHN OGUNMUYIWA (R on the application of ) v The Army Board of the Defence Council

DAMILOLA JOHN OGUNMUYIWA (R on the application of ) v The Army Board of the Defence Council

The Appeal Body erred in law by applying the wrong regulations, failing to consider relevant evidence (including medical and witness evidence), adopting an unduly restrictive definition of bullying, making irrational findings on credibility, and failing to convene an oral hearing where fairness required it. These errors were material and it cannot be said that the outcome would not have been substantially different but for them. The determination is quashed and the matter remitted to a differently constituted appeal body.

Parties
Claimant: Damilola John Ogunmuyiwa; First Defendant: The Army Board of the Defence Council; Second Defendant: The Secretary of State for Defence
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed; determination quashed; matter remitted for fresh consideration by a differently constituted appeal body.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Service Complaints, Bullying and Harassment, Procedural Fairness, Remedies, Delay in Proceedings
Administrative Law Military Law Employment Law Judicial Review Service Complaints Bullying and Harassment Procedural Fairness Remedies +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Damilola John Ogunmuyiwa

Claimant

The Army Board of the Defence Council

First Defendant

The Secretary of State for Defence

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appeal Body erred in law in its application of the relevant regulations to the service complaint process
  2. 2 Whether the Appeal Body's findings on bullying, harassment, and credibility were irrational or unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether the Appeal Body failed to consider relevant evidence and convene an oral hearing, resulting in procedural unfairness

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Body erred in law by applying the wrong regulations, failing to consider relevant evidence (including medical and witness evidence), adopting an unduly restrictive definition of bullying, making irrational findings on credibility, and failing to convene an oral hearing where fairness required it. These errors were material and it cannot be said that the outcome would not have been substantially different but for them. The determination is quashed and the matter remitted to a differently constituted appeal body.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; determination quashed; matter remitted for fresh consideration by a differently constituted appeal body.

Orders

  • The determination of the Appeal Body dated 10 June 2019 is quashed.
  • The service complaint and appeal are to be reconsidered by a differently constituted appeal body at the earliest opportunity, in accordance with the principles set out in this judgment.