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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll