header-logo header-logo

22 March 2012
Issue: 7506 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Testing time for nuclear veterans

Limitation obstacle to British ex-servicemen’s compensation bid

Nuclear-test veterans have suffered a major setback in their campaign to prove fault on the part of the British government for exposing them to radiation.

More than 1,000 British ex-servicemen who witnessed nuclear tests on Christmas Island and in Australia in the 1950s claim their exposure to radiation caused illness, disability, or death. They argued that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) was negligent, and sought compensation. The MoD denied both the radiation exposure and causation.

The veterans, some of whom have said they saw the skeleton of their hands as they shielded their eyes from the glare of the explosion, lost their case at the Supreme Court last week in AB v Ministry of Defence [2012] UKSC 9.

Seven justices held by a 4-3 majority (Lord Phillips, Lord Kerr and Lady Hale dissenting) that the majority of the claims could not proceed due to insufficient evidence to prove the link between exposure and illness, and that many of the claims were time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980 since those claimants had acquired “knowledge” of the injury more than three years before they brought legal action.

The justices discussed the difference between subjective “belief” and “knowledge”, and whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that a claimant has sufficient “knowledge” of the facts—triggering the onset of the limitation period—at the point at which he comes reasonably to believe them.

In his judgment, Lord Wilson says: “The focus is upon the moment when it is reasonable for the claimant to embark on…an investigation.”

In her dissenting judgment, however, Lady Hale says: “Like it or not, time does not begin to run until the claimant has ‘knowledge’ of the essential ‘facts’.

“On the Court of Appeal authorities, a claimant who strongly believed, on no reasonable ground whatsoever, that his illness was caused by exposure to radiation ‘has knowledge of the fact that’ his injury is attributable to that exposure, whereas a claimant who strongly believed that it was not, on the reasonable ground that those in a position to know the truth denied it, has no such knowledge.”

An MoD spokesperson says: “The MoD recognises the debt of gratitude we have to the servicemen who took part in the nuclear tests. [However] the Supreme Court described the claims as having no reasonable prospect of success and that they were doomed to fail.”

Issue: 7506 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll