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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Global finance group strengthened by returning partner in London

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

NEWS
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
back-to-top-scroll