header-logo header-logo

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

Casualties of war

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll