header-logo header-logo

16 October 2019
Issue: 7860 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury , Damages
printer mail-detail

No justice for veterans

Personal injury lawyers have reacted furiously to plans to block veterans from compensation claims.

The government proposes to restrict claims against armed forces veterans by ending judicial discretion to override the three-year limitation period and introducing a no-fault compensation scheme to stop claims from going to court. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) consultation, ‘Legal protections for armed forces personnel and veterans serving in operations outside the UK’, which sets out the proposals, emphasises the stress on veterans and their families where lengthy claims relating to overseas conflicts are brought by civilians, which it dubs ‘lawfare’. The consultation closed last week.

However, lawyers point out that the proposed legislation would also prevent injured armed forces personnel and veterans from seeking compensation from the MoD in the courts.  

Gordon Dalyell, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, said: ‘The MoD’s message is clear.

‘Injured veterans are a burden it wants to shake off as quickly as possible. These are not injuries sustained in battle. They are needless injuries which could and should be avoided and there are many valid reasons why an injured person might wait ten years before seeking compensation.

‘The true damage of post-traumatic stress disorder, or asbestos exposure, for example, can take years to manifest. There is no justification for why the MoD should be excused from its responsibilities to suffering veterans. The employers of civilians are held to account, it would be perverse for our veterans and serving personnel to be denied the same access to justice.’

The MoD consultation also proposed a commitment to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights before future conflicts. 

Issue: 7860 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury , Damages
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll