header-logo header-logo

22 March 2012
Issue: 7506 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Testing time for nuclear veterans

Limitation obstacle to British ex-servicemen’s compensation bid

Nuclear-test veterans have suffered a major setback in their campaign to prove fault on the part of the British government for exposing them to radiation.

More than 1,000 British ex-servicemen who witnessed nuclear tests on Christmas Island and in Australia in the 1950s claim their exposure to radiation caused illness, disability, or death. They argued that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) was negligent, and sought compensation. The MoD denied both the radiation exposure and causation.

The veterans, some of whom have said they saw the skeleton of their hands as they shielded their eyes from the glare of the explosion, lost their case at the Supreme Court last week in AB v Ministry of Defence [2012] UKSC 9.

Seven justices held by a 4-3 majority (Lord Phillips, Lord Kerr and Lady Hale dissenting) that the majority of the claims could not proceed due to insufficient evidence to prove the link between exposure and illness, and that many of the claims were time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980 since those claimants had acquired “knowledge” of the injury more than three years before they brought legal action.

The justices discussed the difference between subjective “belief” and “knowledge”, and whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that a claimant has sufficient “knowledge” of the facts—triggering the onset of the limitation period—at the point at which he comes reasonably to believe them.

In his judgment, Lord Wilson says: “The focus is upon the moment when it is reasonable for the claimant to embark on…an investigation.”

In her dissenting judgment, however, Lady Hale says: “Like it or not, time does not begin to run until the claimant has ‘knowledge’ of the essential ‘facts’.

“On the Court of Appeal authorities, a claimant who strongly believed, on no reasonable ground whatsoever, that his illness was caused by exposure to radiation ‘has knowledge of the fact that’ his injury is attributable to that exposure, whereas a claimant who strongly believed that it was not, on the reasonable ground that those in a position to know the truth denied it, has no such knowledge.”

An MoD spokesperson says: “The MoD recognises the debt of gratitude we have to the servicemen who took part in the nuclear tests. [However] the Supreme Court described the claims as having no reasonable prospect of success and that they were doomed to fail.”

Issue: 7506 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Slater Heelis—Probate & Court of Protection team

Slater Heelis—Probate & Court of Protection team

Slater Heelis brings Probate and Court of Protection expertise together with new dedicated team

Clarke Willmott—Antonia Power

Clarke Willmott—Antonia Power

Antonia Power joins Clarke Willmott in Taunton

Haynes Boone—Chris Acton

Haynes Boone—Chris Acton

Chris Acton joins Haynes Boone as chair of UK derivatives platform

NEWS
Civil practitioners face changes spanning debt recovery, workplace harassment and possession claims, alongside guidance on insolvency challenges and children proceedings

Finding matrimonial wealth is as challenging as dividing it, as family disputes draw practitioners into asset tracing, offshore structures and insolvency

Agreement between opponents offers no guarantee that a court will approve a retrospective increase to a costs budget
Climate change belongs on every lawyer’s agenda, with risks extending far beyond environmental practice into commercial advice, litigation and access to justice
Workplace bullying and harassment can no longer be left solely to HR, as financial regulation scrutinises culture, character and fitness
back-to-top-scroll