ROA v Secretary of State for Defence (Veterans UK) [2026] UKUT 160 (AAC) (21 April 2026)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal allowed ROA’s appeal against a First-tier Tribunal decision that had dismissed her claim for an award under the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 2006. It held that the First-tier Tribunal made an error of law because it gave insufficient findings of fact and inadequate reasons when resolving conflicting medical evidence about whether the appellant’s hearing loss was attributable to service. The case was set aside and remitted to a freshly constituted First-tier Tribunal for an oral redetermination.

Key points

• Parties: ROA appealed against the Secretary of State for Defence (Veterans UK) on a war pensions claim.
• Holding: appeal allowed; First-tier Tribunal decision set aside under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
• Reasoning: the tribunal relied on only one stated reason—the time gap between service and onset of hearing loss—without adequate findings of fact or explanation.
• The Upper Tribunal said the First-tier Tribunal did not explain why it rejected the appellant’s oral evidence or her challenge to the respondent’s medical report.
• Remedy: case remitted to a different First-tier Tribunal panel for redetermination at an oral hearing.
• Sanctions/export-control angle: none apparent; this is a procedural war-pensions appeal, not a sanctions or export-control matter.

Why it matters

The decision is relevant to sovereign-risk and defence-adjacent litigation because it shows that Veterans UK/Defence decisions can be overturned where reasoning is too thin to support a denial of entitlement. It also reinforces that public-law style procedural standards—especially adequate reasons and fact-finding—remain enforceable in military compensation disputes.

Implications

For compliance and litigation strategy, the case underscores the need for decision-makers to record explicit findings on contested evidence, not merely prefer one expert report over another. For appellants, it highlights a viable challenge route where a tribunal fails to explain why it accepted one medical opinion and rejected contrary lay and expert evidence; for respondents, it favors fuller reasons and better engagement with credibility and technical objections at first instance.