header-logo header-logo

27 May 2016
Issue: 7700 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Limitation of action

Ministry of Defence v Iraqi Civilians [2016] UKSC 25, [2016] All ER (D) 88 (May)

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by Iraqi claimants, who alleged that they had suffered unlawful detention and/or physical maltreatment at the hands of British armed forces in Iraq, against a decision by the Court of Appeal in which it had found in favour of the Ministry of Justice that an English court was bound to disregard any impediment arising from Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) Order 17 because that order was not a law with respect to limitation which the English courts were bound to apply. The court ruled that the Court of Appeal had been right to say that CPA Order 17 had no legal effect in an English court. It ruled that, in the English proceedings, the relevant law was the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984. The CPA Order 17 had no relevance to English proceedings because it had no application outside Iraq and had never impeded resort to the English court.

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll