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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll