header-logo header-logo

Testing time for nuclear veterans

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll