Bass v Ministry of Defence [2020] EWHC 36 (QB) (13 January 2020)

Bass v Ministry of Defence [2020] EWHC 36 (QB) (13 January 2020)

The MOD did not breach its duty of care to the claimant. The risk of Q fever was foreseeable but assessed as low, and the MOD's ongoing risk assessment and adherence to national policy on malaria prophylaxis were reasonable. There was no sufficient evidence that Doxycycline would have prevented the claimant's illness or that he would have complied with such a regime. The Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999 did not apply to the MOD's decisions regarding activities abroad.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 36 (QB)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Mr Wayne Bass; Respondent/defendant: Ministry of Defence
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Central London County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Employers' Liability, Risk Assessment, Duty of Care, Military Law, Causation, Health and Safety at Work Regulations
Tort Employment Health and Safety Employers' Liability Risk Assessment Duty of Care Military Law Causation +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Wayne Bass

Appellant/claimant

Ministry of Defence

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Central London County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Ministry of Defence breached its duty of care to the claimant by failing to conduct an adequate risk assessment regarding Q fever for troops deployed to Afghanistan
  2. 2 Whether the Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999 applied extraterritorially to MOD decisions affecting soldiers abroad
  3. 3 Whether the MOD's response to the risk of Q fever was reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The MOD did not breach its duty of care to the claimant. The risk of Q fever was foreseeable but assessed as low, and the MOD's ongoing risk assessment and adherence to national policy on malaria prophylaxis were reasonable. There was no sufficient evidence that Doxycycline would have prevented the claimant's illness or that he would have complied with such a regime. The Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999 did not apply to the MOD's decisions regarding activities abroad.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed