The Court of Appeal has reserved judgement in the case of Sergeant Trevor Walker, who was wounded when a Serbian tank shell hit the UN compound in the Bosnian town of Maglaj, in May 1995.

Sgt Walker claims the MoD is responsible for his injuries

Sgt Walker, aged 32, from Gillingham, in Kent, claims the Ministry of Defence acted "unfairly and perversely" when it refused to compensate him even though the UN would have eventually reimbursed the cost.

He is appealing against a ruling in February this year by a High Court judge who rejected his lawyers' argument that he was entitled to compensation for his "appalling" injuries.

'Issue of general importance'

Sgt Walker's counsel, David Pannick QC, told the three Court of Appeal judges his client's appeal raised an issue of "general importance".

He told Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Chadwick and Sir Christopher Staughton: "The issue is whether Sgt Walker is entitled to benefit under the Armed Forces' scheme for compensation for criminal injuries in respect of the injuries which he suffered while he was serving in the UN peacekeeping force in the former Yugoslavia.

A Serbian shell punctured the wall of the UN compound at Maglaj

"Our submission is that Sgt Walker is entitled to compensation on the proper interpretation of that scheme and, indeed, no sensible purpose is served by a narrow construction given that the UN reimburses this country for compensation paid."

Sgt Walker, who had an exemplary record, was seriously injured when a Serbian tank opened fire on a school which was serving as a UN observation post and accommodation complex.

Road-building duties

At the time he was a corporal in the Royal Engineers engaged in building roads in the Maglaj area.

Sgt Walker was engaged in road-laying at the time of the attack

After the attack he underwent 13 operations, but his right leg had to be amputated above the knee in January 1996.

He remained in the army but was transferred to the Royal School of Military Engineering, near Gillingham, where he became a storeman.

In February, Mr Justice Latham rejected his claim on the grounds that he was engaged in active service at the time of his wounding.

But he granted him leave to appeal on the grounds that his case raised issues of public importance and could affect other service personnel in a similar situation.

The Court of Appeal judgement is expected to be published next month.