header-logo header-logo

16 December 2010 / Nina Unthank
Issue: 7446 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

The price of freedom

Nina Unthank reports on why & how military veterans lost their latest battle

The Court of Appeal’s judgment in Ministry of Defence v AB & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1317, [2010] All ER (D) 252 (Nov) was handed down last month. Between 1952 and 1958, the British Government carried out 21 atmospheric nuclear tests of thermonuclear devices in the region of the Pacific Ocean.

Some involved fission bombs and some fusion bombs. Some were exploded high above the Pacific Ocean; others were exploded at or a little above ground level. All of them will have given rise to radioactive fallout and what is known as ‘the prompt radiation effect’. All three branches of the armed forces took part with some 22,000 servicemen being involved. A group of 1011 claimants comprising mainly former UK servicemen brought actions, claiming damages for the adverse consequences to their health which they alleged resulted from exposure to ionising radiation deriving from the tests. A group litigation order was made.

The parties agreed that there should be a preliminary

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll