header-logo header-logo

02 October 2015 / Elizabeth Milbourn
Issue: 7670 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

​Duty to those on duty

web_milbourn

When is military personnel owed a duty of care outside combat situations? Elizabeth Milbourn investigates

In Vaughan v Ministry of Defence [2015] EWHC 1404 (QB), [2015] All ER (D) 207 (May) the claimant royal marine injured himself while away on basic training during some free time. The claimant brought a claim in negligence against the Ministry of Defence (MoD). The Queen’s Bench Division dismissed the claim on the basis that that the duty did not apply at the time of the accident and that the corporal in charge of the training exercise did not breach his duty of care.

Background

Until 1987, s 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 prevented military personnel from bringing actions against the Crown in respect of death or personal injury caused by other members of the British Armed Forces. Section 10 was suspended by the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987.

Members of the armed forces who have been injured in an accident are therefore able to pursue a claim against the MoD for breach of

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll