An RAF officer injured whilst on a voluntary placement abroad has been told he cannot bring his claim in England.

Lawyers for Robin Stait, who suffered hip injuries in a cycling accident in Cyprus in 2017, had tried to argue that the court risked denying members of the British armed forces their legal rights when posted abroad.

With the case leapfrogged to the Court of Appeal, Lady Justice Whipple in Stait v Cosmos Insurance Ltd Cyprus upheld a district judge’s verdict that while Stait had a ‘substantial connection’ with England, he had a ‘clear and settled pattern of life at and around’ his base and he should be considered resident in the Cyprus jurisdiction.

Dismissing the argument that UK servicemen would be significantly disadvantaged if the appeal failed, the judge added: ‘This court applies the law, and on the law as it stands there is no special rule for members of the armed services.’

Stait, 39, had been four years into a voluntary placement to work as an electronic equipment technician for the RAF in the Sovereign Base Area (SBA) at Akrotiri when he was knocked to the ground by a car. He sued the driver’s insuer for £100,000, issuing proceedings in the Birmingham district registry of the King’s Bench Division of the High Court.

He was born in Gloucester and he and his wife owned a property in Cumbria which they rented out while the family was stationed in the SBA. They both retained UK bank accounts, held investments in the UK and Stait remained on the UK electoral register throughout, paying UK tax and national insurance on his RAF income.

His lawyers argued that the district judge ignored that Stait had lived in England until 2016 and failed to consider whether it was possible to have more than one residence. They also submitted that the court’s previous ruling would result in members of the British armed forces losing the jurisdictional rights associated with their residency within the UK when posted abroad, and facing unfair restrictions of their rights.

The defendant insurer said that Stait’s intention to return to England was immaterial to the question of residence. His voluntary taking up of a position abroad and establishing a clear and settled pattern of life in the SBA showed there had been a ‘distinct break’ from his previous home. It was further argued that the test of residence was applied in the same way to service personnel as to any other people.

The judge concluded: ‘There are factors which pull both ways. But it is not a game of numbers, rather it is an evaluative exercise looking at the quality of Mr Stait’s time in and connections with England and Wales.

‘I consider the factors which demonstrate that Mr Stait was solely resident in the SBA during those years outweigh, by some margin, the factors which suggest residence was retained in the UK throughout, and the judge was correct to reach the conclusion that he was not resident in this jurisdiction.’

 

This article is now closed for comment.