AB & Ors v Ministry of Defence

AB & Ors v Ministry of Defence

The claims are not to be struck out as doomed to fail on causation; in five of ten lead cases, claims are not statute-barred as relevant knowledge was not acquired until within three years of issue; in the remaining cases, the court exercises its discretion under section 33 to disapply the limitation period, finding that a fair trial is still possible due to the extensive contemporaneous documentation, the unique and unprecedented nature of the events, and the public interest in ventilating the issues. The emergence of the Rowland Report and advances in scientific knowledge are pivotal in establishing knowledge and justifying the exercise of discretion.

Parties
Claimants: AB & Others; Defendants: Ministry of Defence
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Group Personal Injury Action (test Cases) / Ruling on Preliminary Issue of Limitation (limitation Act 1980)
Outcome
Claims in all ten lead cases may proceed to trial; limitation is not a bar in five cases, and section 33 discretion is exercised in the remainder.
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Negligence, Causation, Exposure to Ionising Radiation, Group Litigation, Section 33 Discretion, Constructive Knowledge, Strike Out/abuse of Process
Tort Personal Injury Public Law Limitation of Actions Negligence Causation Exposure to Ionising Radiation Group Litigation +3 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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB & Others

Claimants

Ministry of Defence

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Group Personal Injury Action (test Cases) / Ruling on Preliminary Issue of Limitation (limitation Act 1980)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims by nuclear test veterans and their estates/dependants are statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 When relevant knowledge for limitation purposes was acquired (actual or constructive)
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion under section 33 to disapply the limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

The claims are not to be struck out as doomed to fail on causation; in five of ten lead cases, claims are not statute-barred as relevant knowledge was not acquired until within three years of issue; in the remaining cases, the court exercises its discretion under section 33 to disapply the limitation period, finding that a fair trial is still possible due to the extensive contemporaneous documentation, the unique and unprecedented nature of the events, and the public interest in ventilating the issues. The emergence of the Rowland Report and advances in scientific knowledge are pivotal in establishing knowledge and justifying the exercise of discretion.

Court Disposition

Claims in all ten lead cases may proceed to trial; limitation is not a bar in five cases, and section 33 discretion is exercised in the remainder.

Orders

  • Limitation Act 1980 does not bar the claims of Mr Ayres, the late Mr Brothers, the late Mr Dickson, Mr Hart, and the late Mr Sinfield.
  • Section 33 discretion exercised to allow claims of Mr McGinley, the late Mr Clark, Mr Noone, the late Mr Ogden, and Mr Rokoratu to proceed.