header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
02 October 2015 / Elizabeth Milbourn
Issue: 7670 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

​Duty to those on duty

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

Read All
Sponsored by
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
Read All
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
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
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
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
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
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
NLJ this week: Diamond rings and broken promises

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

NLJ this week: The battle over medical report fees intensifies
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll