Military Injury Claims: How Are They Different From Ordinary Personal Injury Claims?

Serving in the Armed Forces involves risks and responsibilities that most people will never experience.

Military personnel may be required to undertake demanding physical training, operate complex machinery, work with heavy equipment, participate in exercises, work in challenging environments and, in some circumstances, serve overseas in dangerous conditions.

But being a member of the Armed Forces does not mean that every injury suffered during service is simply an unavoidable consequence of military life.

Where a service person is injured because of negligence, unsafe systems of work, inadequate equipment, inappropriate working practices, a failure to provide appropriate training or supervision, or a failure to respond properly to an existing injury, there may be a right to pursue compensation.

Military injury claims can, however, be considerably more complicated than an ordinary accident at work claim.

At Aston Knight Solicitors, we have seen first-hand how important it is to look beyond the obvious issues in a military injury claim.

In one particularly significant case, we secured a £5.7 million settlement for a seriously injured soldier whose claim had previously been rejected by two major national law firms and two senior barristers.

The case demonstrates why a claim should not necessarily be abandoned simply because another solicitor has concluded that there is no case.

What is a military injury claim?

A military injury claim is a claim arising from an injury, illness or condition suffered as a result of military service.

There are a number of different ways in which a service person may potentially obtain compensation.

These can include:

• a claim under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS);
• a claim under the War Pension Scheme for certain injuries or conditions relating to earlier service;
• a civil claim for damages where the injury was caused by negligence;
• a claim against a third party responsible for the injury;
• a claim arising from defective equipment or products;
• a claim involving military vehicles or road traffic accidents;
• a claim involving inadequate medical treatment or clinical negligence; and
• claims arising from unsafe working practices, training or supervision.

These routes are not necessarily alternatives in the sense that choosing one automatically prevents another.

For example, the Ministry of Defence’s current guidance confirms that the AFCS is separate from civil claims for negligence and that a service person may still pursue a common law claim where they believe their injury was caused by negligence. However, compensation cannot ordinarily be recovered twice for the same loss, meaning that awards under different schemes may have to be taken into account.

This is one of the reasons why obtaining appropriate legal advice at an early stage can be important.

The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme

The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme is an important distinction between military injury claims and many ordinary personal injury claims.

The AFCS is a no-fault compensation scheme.

This means that a service person does not have to establish that somebody was negligent in order to qualify for an award under the scheme.

The scheme applies to injury, illness or death caused by service on or after 6 April 2005.

For successful claims, compensation can include a tax-free lump sum and, for more serious injuries, a Guaranteed Income Payment which can provide an ongoing tax-free monthly payment following discharge.

The AFCS therefore operates very differently from a conventional negligence claim.

Ordinary personal injury claim

In a conventional personal injury claim, the claimant will generally need to establish:

1. that the defendant owed them a duty of care;
2. that the defendant breached that duty;
3. that the breach caused the injury; and
4. the extent of the resulting losses.

AFCS claim

Under the AFCS, it is not necessary to prove negligence.

The question is instead whether the injury or illness falls within the requirements of the statutory compensation scheme.

That can make the AFCS an important route for injured service personnel. But it does not necessarily mean that an AFCS application is the end of the matter.

A military injury can give rise to a negligence claim as well

One of the most important points for serving and former service personnel to understand is that an AFCS award does not necessarily prevent a civil negligence claim.

The Ministry of Defence’s current policy expressly recognises that service personnel can pursue common law damages where they believe an injury, illness or death was caused by MOD or third-party negligence.

Why does that matter?

Because the compensation available under a conventional damages claim can be calculated very differently.

A negligence claim may take account of losses such as:

• pain, suffering and loss of amenity;
• past loss of earnings;
• future loss of earnings;
• pension losses;
• the cost of professional care;
• future care and assistance;
• specialist equipment;
• adaptations to a home;
• transport requirements;
• rehabilitation;
• medical treatment;
• therapies;
• accommodation;
• assistance with everyday activities; and
• other financial consequences flowing from the injury.

For someone who has suffered a catastrophic injury, these losses can potentially run into millions of pounds.

That is why it is important not to assume that because an injury occurred during military service, the AFCS is necessarily the only route to compensation.

How are military injury claims similar to ordinary personal injury claims?

There are actually many similarities.

At their core, both types of claim are concerned with establishing what happened, who was responsible, what injury was caused and what financial consequences have followed.

Evidence remains critical

As with any personal injury claim, evidence can make or break a military injury case.

This may include:

• medical records;
• medical reports;
• accident reports;
• incident reports;
• witness evidence;
• photographs;
• training records;
• equipment records;
• risk assessments;
• orders and instructions;
• military medical evidence;
• personnel records;
• employment records;
• financial documentation;
• evidence concerning care and assistance; and
• evidence concerning the claimant’s future needs.

Military claims can be particularly evidence-heavy because the relevant information may be spread across a large number of different records and organisations.

A successful solicitor needs to understand what evidence exists and, importantly, what evidence should exist.

Medical evidence is equally important

The medical issues can be complex. An injury may not be immediately apparent. A service person may continue working despite significant symptoms.

They may be reluctant to report problems because they are concerned about their career, their colleagues or their ability to continue serving.

There may also be disputes about whether an injury was caused by service, whether service aggravated a pre-existing condition or whether subsequent events contributed to the deterioration.

These issues require careful medical investigation.

Financial losses still have to be established

A serious military injury can affect a person’s entire working life.

A claimant may have been capable of a physically demanding military career before their injury but unable to return to that career afterwards.

The assessment of financial loss may therefore require detailed consideration of:

• the claimant’s military career;
• likely promotion;
• future earnings;
• pension entitlement;
• career progression;
• potential civilian employment;
• transferable skills;
• retirement age; and
• the effect of the injury on future earning capacity.

This can be substantially more complicated than simply looking at a claimant’s current salary.

How are military claims different?

This is where military claims become particularly interesting.

1. The AFCS creates a separate compensation route

The biggest difference is the existence of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme.

An ordinary workplace accident victim does not have an equivalent military compensation scheme sitting alongside a potential negligence claim.

Service personnel therefore need to consider both the scheme and whether there may also be a civil claim.

2. Military work is not ordinary employment

A service person’s job can involve risks that simply do not arise in most civilian workplaces.

Training exercises, weapons, vehicles, aircraft, heavy machinery, field exercises, deployments and other operational activities can all create particular circumstances.

This can raise difficult questions about what precautions were reasonably required and whether an injury was genuinely an unavoidable consequence of military activity or could have been prevented.

The existence of risk does not automatically mean that the MOD is liable.

But neither does the fact that an activity was part of military service automatically mean that there can be no claim.

Combat immunity can make military claims particularly complicated

One of the distinctive features of military negligence litigation is the doctrine of combat immunity.

In broad terms, there are circumstances in which the courts will not impose ordinary negligence liability for decisions or conduct sufficiently connected with active combat operations.

However, the scope of combat immunity has been the subject of significant litigation.

In Smith v Ministry of Defence, the Supreme Court considered the application of combat immunity and emphasised that it should not simply be treated as a blanket protection covering everything connected with military activity.

This distinction can be extremely important.

An injury suffered during military service does not automatically become a claim to which combat immunity applies.

For example, difficult legal questions can arise where the injury relates to:

• training;
• preparation for deployment;
• equipment;
• maintenance;
• supervision;
• systems of work;
• medical treatment;
• accommodation;
• transport; or
• decisions made away from the immediate pressures of combat.

The precise circumstances have to be examined carefully.

This is another reason why military injury claims should not necessarily be rejected simply because the injury occurred during service or in connection with military activity.

The £5.7 million Aston Knight case: when two national firms said there was no claim

Aston Knight Solicitors’ experience demonstrates exactly why a detailed review of a military injury claim can be so important.

Our client was a soldier who suffered a lifting injury while working in a military hangar.

Following the initial injury, his military doctor made strong recommendations regarding his condition and the adjustments that should be made to enable him to recover.

Those recommendations were not properly implemented.

Instead, his workload was increased.

Over the following year his condition deteriorated substantially, ultimately leaving him very heavily disabled.

At that point, the case might have appeared extremely difficult.

Indeed, it had already been considered by major legal practices.

The client had initially instructed Setfords, a large national personal injury firm which advertised expertise in claims involving injured soldiers.
The case was pursued for a number of years and advice was obtained from two senior barristers.
The conclusion was that the client did not have a viable case.
The file was closed.
The client then approached Irwin Mitchell, one of the country’s largest personal injury firms.

Following its review of the case, the claim was also rejected.

For the client, that could understandably have appeared to be the end of the road.

But it was not.

The Aston Knight Difference

The client was subsequently recommended to Aston Knight Solicitors.

Rather than simply accepting the previous conclusions, we agreed to undertake a free independent review of the papers.

Our approach was different.

We looked at the evidence again.

We identified lines of enquiry that had not previously been pursued and considered whether the existing evidence could be developed in a way that supported a successful claim.

Importantly, we did not simply accept the conclusions reached by the previous firms and counsel.

We investigated the case for ourselves.

That process identified evidence which we believed had been overlooked and which could fundamentally change the prospects of the claim.

Ultimately, our assessment proved correct.

Aston Knight secured a £5.7 million settlement.

The settlement enabled our severely disabled client to obtain a specially adapted home and specialist private care, substantially improving his quality of life.

The case is a powerful illustration of something we see repeatedly in complex personal injury litigation:

A rejected claim is not necessarily a hopeless claim.

Sometimes the difference is the willingness to look at the evidence again.

Why was the case so complex?

The case illustrates another important difference between a straightforward accident claim and a serious military injury claim.

The initial lifting injury was only part of the story.

The claim required consideration of what happened after the original injury.

Questions included:

• What did the military know about the injury?
• What advice had been given by the military medical team?
• What adjustments were recommended?
• Were those recommendations implemented?
• What work was the claimant subsequently required to undertake?
• Did the workload make the condition worse?
• Could the deterioration have been avoided?
• What injury was caused by the original accident?
• What additional injury resulted from the subsequent treatment of the claimant?
• What would the claimant’s life have looked like had appropriate steps been taken?
• What would his future care and accommodation requirements be?
• What were his future financial losses?

These are not simple questions.

They demonstrate why complex military injury claims require more than simply obtaining an accident report and a medical report.

Serious military injury claims can involve substantial future losses

Where a service person suffers a catastrophic injury, the value of the claim may extend far beyond compensation for the injury itself.

For example, someone who suffers a spinal cord injury, brain injury or other catastrophic condition may require:

Accommodation

A conventional home may no longer be suitable.

The claimant may require:

• wheelchair accessibility;
• adapted bathrooms;
• specialist equipment;
• lifts;
• wider doorways;
• accessible kitchens;
• additional space for carers; and
• other structural adaptations.

Care

A severely injured person may require assistance for the rest of their life.

This can include professional carers as well as assistance provided by family members.

Rehabilitation

Specialist rehabilitation may be required to maximise independence and improve quality of life.

Equipment

Wheelchairs, specialist beds, standing frames, communication equipment and other assistive technology can all represent substantial costs.

Loss of earnings

The claimant may be unable to return to military service and may also have significantly reduced earning capacity in civilian employment.

Pension losses

For someone who expected to build a long-term military career, the effect of an injury on pension rights and future benefits can be significant.

All of these factors can form part of the assessment of a serious injury claim.

Military injury claims in 2026: the importance of getting the law right

Military compensation remains an active and evolving area of law.

Recent decisions demonstrate that disputes under the AFCS can involve detailed questions about causation and how a service person’s injury should be assessed.

For example, in SKJ v Secretary of State for Defence (AFCS), decided in 2026, the Upper Tribunal found an error of law in the assessment of a service person’s low back condition. The

Tribunal emphasised the need to apply the correct legal test when considering whether service caused the injury.

Another 2026 Upper Tribunal decision, NN v Secretary of State for Defence, concerned physical and mental injuries which had been accepted as caused or worsened by service. The Tribunal found an error in the way the effect of the claimant’s employment history had been assessed.

These cases illustrate an important point:

Military compensation is not necessarily straightforward simply because a statutory scheme exists.

The evidence and the legal test still matter.

Military claims are not limited to soldiers injured in combat

It is also important to dispel a common misconception.

Military injury claims are not simply claims involving soldiers injured on operations.

A service-related injury could arise from:

• training exercises;
• lifting or manual handling;
• defective or unsuitable equipment;
• vehicle accidents;
• military exercises;
• inadequate supervision;
• unsafe systems of work;
• excessive workloads;
• failure to follow medical advice;
• inadequate rehabilitation;
• noise exposure;
• vibration;
• occupational disease;
• psychological injury;
• negligent medical treatment;
• sports injuries in certain circumstances; or
• accidents involving third parties.

The Ministry of Defence’s published statistics demonstrate the breadth of claims made against it. In 2024/25, more than 35,000 new common law compensation claims were brought against the MOD, while 2,046 Service Personnel Employer’s Liability claims were settled, involving expenditure of £103.4 million.

The figures include a range of claims and should not be interpreted as meaning that every claim will succeed.

They do, however, demonstrate that compensation claims involving service personnel are a significant area of litigation.

What should you do if you have been injured during military service?

If you have suffered an injury or illness during military service, it is important to preserve evidence as early as possible.

You should consider obtaining copies of:

• military medical records;
• civilian GP and hospital records;
• accident and incident reports;
• relevant military orders;
• training records;
• correspondence;
• emails;
• risk assessments;
• witness details;
• photographs;
• information concerning your duties;
• details of any medical recommendations;
• evidence of adjustments requested or recommended; and
• documentation showing the effect of your injury on your career and finances.

The GOV.UK guidance confirms that supporting evidence such as medical reports, orders and accident or incident reports can be relevant to an AFCS claim.

You should also be cautious about assuming that a claim is hopeless because:

the accident happened years ago;

• you continued serving after the injury;
• you were told the injury was simply part of military life;
• you have already received an AFCS award;
• another solicitor rejected the claim;
• you were told that combat immunity applies; or
• you were told that there was insufficient evidence.

The legal position will depend on the particular facts and evidence.

How Aston Knight approaches military injury claims

Military injury claims often require a different mindset from straightforward personal injury work.

The question is not simply:

“Did an accident happen?”

It may instead be:

“What actually happened, what should have happened, what did the MOD know, what evidence supports each part of the case, and what losses have resulted?”

At Aston Knight Solicitors, we are particularly experienced in complex and rejected personal injury claims.

Our £5.7 million military injury settlement is an example of the Aston Knight Difference.

The client’s claim had already been considered by two national firms and two senior barristers.

It had been rejected. We looked at it again.

We found evidence and lines of enquiry that had not previously been pursued and we ultimately secured a £5.7 million settlement for our client. That experience reinforces our approach to complex claims:

We do not simply accept that a claim cannot succeed because somebody else has said so.

We investigate. We challenge. We look for the evidence that others may have missed.And where there is a viable case, we pursue it.

Frequently Asked Questions About Military Injury Claims

Can I claim compensation if I was injured while serving in the Armed Forces?

Potentially, yes.

Depending on when and how the injury occurred, you may be able to make a claim under the AFCS, the War Pension Scheme or pursue a civil claim for damages where negligence is involved.

The correct route will depend on the circumstances of your injury.

Do I have to prove negligence?

Not necessarily.

The AFCS is a no-fault scheme, so negligence does not have to be established for an AFCS award.

However, if you are pursuing a common law negligence claim, establishing fault and causation will generally be necessary.

Can I make a negligence claim if I have already received an AFCS award?

Potentially, yes.

An AFCS award does not automatically prevent a common law claim.

However, compensation cannot normally be recovered twice for the same injury or loss, so the interaction between the two claims needs to be considered carefully.

Can I claim if I have already left the Army, Royal Navy or RAF?

Potentially, yes.

The AFCS covers current and former service personnel, subject to the applicable rules and time limits.

What if my injury was caused by a pre-existing condition?

A pre-existing condition does not necessarily prevent a claim.

The key questions may include whether service caused, aggravated or materially contributed to the condition.

What if another solicitor has already rejected my military injury claim?

You should not necessarily assume that the claim is finished.

Different solicitors can reach different conclusions after reviewing the same evidence, particularly in complex cases.

Aston Knight has successfully taken on claims previously rejected by other firms.

Our £5.7 million settlement for an injured soldier is a particularly striking example.

Can I claim if my injury occurred during training rather than combat?

Potentially, yes.

Military training injuries can give rise to claims depending on the circumstances, including whether negligence contributed to the injury.

Training and operational activity should not simply be treated as one category. The precise facts need to be investigated.

How much is a military injury claim worth?

There is no standard figure.

The value will depend upon the nature and severity of the injury and the resulting financial losses.

For serious injuries, compensation may include substantial sums for future care, accommodation, equipment, rehabilitation, loss of earnings and pension losses.

Is there a time limit for military injury claims?

There are time limits, but they differ depending on the type of claim being pursued.

For example, the current AFCS guidance generally provides a seven-year period for qualifying claims, subject to the detailed rules and exceptions applying to particular conditions.

Civil negligence claims have their own limitation rules.

Because different regimes can apply, it is important not to assume that the time limit for one type of military claim applies to another.

Have you been told that you do not have a military injury claim?

If you have suffered an injury during military service, or if your condition was caused or made worse by your service, you may have more than one potential route to compensation.

And if another solicitor has already rejected your claim, that does not necessarily mean that there is nothing more that can be done.

At Aston Knight Solicitors, we specialise in complex and rejected personal injury and medical negligence claims.

Our £5.7 million settlement for an injured soldier, after two national law firms and two senior barristers had concluded that the client did not have a viable case, demonstrates why obtaining an independent assessment can sometimes make all the difference.

We were prepared to look again. We found evidence that had previously been overlooked and we succeeded where others had failed. That is the Aston Knight Difference.

If you have suffered a military injury, or if another solicitor has rejected your military injury claim, contact Aston Knight Solicitors for an initial discussion about your case.

You may have been told that you do not have a claim. We believe it is always worth asking why.