header-logo header-logo

Casualties of war

22 October 2009 / Richard Scorer
Issue: 7390 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Richard Scorer examines a hidden epidemic suffered by British soldiers

The possibilities for civil compensation for soldiers suffering from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are currently bedevilled by several legal limitations.

The first is “combat immunity”: while the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has a duty of care as employer of soldiers, no such duty arises in battlefield situations. A soldier does not owe a fellow soldier a duty of care in tort when engaged with an enemy in the course of combat. The MoD is not under a duty at common law to maintain a safe system of work for service personnel engaged in combat.

“Combat” has an extended meaning, and covers all active operations against the enemy: attack and resistance, advance and retreat, pursuit and avoidance, reconnaissance and engagement. Due to combat immunity, a claim cannot be brought against the MoD simply because a serviceman or woman suffers PTSD as a result of combat experiences.

The claimant has to identify a negligent failure on the part of his employers to diagnose and treat

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll