Hopps v Mott Macdonald Ltd & Anor

Hopps v Mott Macdonald Ltd & Anor

The court held that, given the security situation in Basrah in October 2003, it was not unreasonable for the claimant to be transported in an unarmoured vehicle. The risk of IED attack, as known or ought to have been known, did not require the procurement or use of B6 armoured vehicles for civilian contractors, nor did it require confining the claimant to base. Even if a B6 vehicle had been provided, the claimant did not prove on the balance of probabilities that it would have prevented or materially reduced his injuries. Therefore, there was no breach of duty and no causative link to the injuries.

Parties
Claimant: Graham Hopps; First Defendant: Mott MacDonald Ltd; Second Defendant: Ministry of Defence
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Employer's Liability / Personal Injury / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Employer's Duty of Care, Personal Injury, Delegation of Duty, Reasonable Care in Hazardous Environments
Tort Law Employment Law Employer's Duty of Care Personal Injury Delegation of Duty Reasonable Care in Hazardous Environments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Graham Hopps

Claimant

Mott MacDonald Ltd

First Defendant

Ministry of Defence

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Employer's Liability / Personal Injury / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer (Mott MacDonald Ltd) breached its duty of care to the claimant by failing to provide adequate protection (armoured vehicles) or confine him to base in light of the security situation in Basrah, Iraq, in October 2003.
  2. 2 Whether the Ministry of Defence, having assumed responsibility for security, breached its duty of care.
  3. 3 Whether any breach caused or materially contributed to the claimant's injuries.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, given the security situation in Basrah in October 2003, it was not unreasonable for the claimant to be transported in an unarmoured vehicle. The risk of IED attack, as known or ought to have been known, did not require the procurement or use of B6 armoured vehicles for civilian contractors, nor did it require confining the claimant to base. Even if a B6 vehicle had been provided, the claimant did not prove on the balance of probabilities that it would have prevented or materially reduced his injuries. Therefore, there was no breach of duty and no causative link to the injuries.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant's claim is dismissed.