header-logo header-logo

Nuclear fallout

03 May 2012 / Roger Harris
Issue: 7512 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Roger Harris follows the plight of personal injury claimants

The “atomic veterans” litigation reached its climax with the decision of the Supreme Court in AB & Others v Ministry of Defence [2012] UKSC 9, [2012] All ER (D) 108 (Mar). The claimants represented over 1,000 veteran servicemen who had been involved in thermonuclear tests carried out by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in the South Pacific in the 1950s. Their case was that they had been exposed to radiation during the course of this testing and had subsequently developed injuries as a result of their exposure. Limitation was tried as a preliminary issue. There were issues both as to date of knowledge under s 14 of the Limitation Act 1980 and whether the court should exercise its discretion under s 33 of the Act.

Bizarre situation

The conundrum in AB was that the MoD maintained for the purposes of s 33 that the claimants’ case on causation was so weak that it had no real prospect of success, yet for the purposes

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll