In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court (Phillips, Rodger, Hale, Collins & Kerr LLJ) reversed the decision in the Court of Appeal, finding that the English connections in this case were «
substantial, if not overwhelming», and that there was a «very large disparity between what the husband received and what the wife received such as to
create real
hardship and a serious injustice».
[61] The Defendant's interpretation of Article 24 (a)(iv) of the SISIP Policy... results in the
substantial under - compensation of disabled CF members following their release [and]...
creates particular
hardship for those who are the most in need of their Pension Act benefits because of disabling injuries.