Nuclear test veterans appeal to be heard by Supreme Court

29 July 2011 by

On Thursday 28th July, the Supreme Court heard a “permission to appeal” argument in the British nuclear testing case.  The judgment to be appealed is that of the Court of Appeal Civil Division in Ministry of Defence v AB and others[2010] EWCA Civ 1317 – (Smith and Leveson LJJ and Sir Mark Waller).  

In terse legalese, the issue to be appealed is whether the Court of Appeal – (1) applied the wrong legal test for knowledge in section 14 of the Limitation Act 1980, and (2) adopted the wrong legal approach to the exercise of discretion under section 33 of the Act.  The Supreme Court granted permission for the appeal – see BBC 28th July and The Independent 28th July.
From 1952 to 1958, the UK carried out atmospheric nuclear testing in the Pacific Ocean region.  Around 22,000 service personnel were involved.  In December 2004, actions were commenced against the UK government.  The total number of claimants is 1011 and they are mainly former servicemen but also some civilians.  Some of the claims are brought by executors / administrators or dependants.  The claims relate to consequences to health alleged to have resulted from
exposure to ionising radiation deriving from the tests.  Ten “lead cases” were selected by the parties to assist in determining the preliminary issues.

In early 2009, Mr Justice Foskett gave a very detailed judgment – Ministry of Defence v AB and others [2009] EWHC 1225 QB – allowing the claims to proceed to trial though he expressed the view (para 876) that the claims might be settled via mediation.  He also stated that he did not wish to create a “false dawn” for the claimants should the cases get to full trial of the issues.  His judgment extends to 885 paragraphs, 2 Appendices and a very helpful index.  A good summary of Mr Justice Foskett decision may be read at “Atomic veterans given go ahead to sue government.”

A significant question in the case is whether the claims are statute-barred by theLimitation Act 1980.  The basic position is that claims in tort (i.e. “civil wrong”) are barred after 6 years but personal injury claims are barred after 3 years. The general aim of “limitation” is to prevent stale claims being raised many years after the event when they could properly have been raised promptly after the injury.  However, the legislation makes provision for cases where the injury may not be realised until after the expiration of the basic limitation period.   The Act also allows (section 33) the judge to disapply the limitation rules in some situations.  Even though Mr Justice Foskett found that some of the claims were statute-barred, he nevertheless said that he would exercise his discretion (under section 33) to allow the claims to proceed.

An important report was produced in 2007 by Professor Al Rowland (formerly of Massey University, New Zealand) and is a significant contribution to the acquisition of knowledge relating to the effects of nuclear testing on humans within close range of the testing.  See Rowland report and the useful PowerPoint summary.

In the world of the 1950s, the United Kingdom was anxious to become one of the world’s nuclear powers.  from the late 1950s, this was not without political opposition – see, for example, CND and WMD Awareness.  In 1957, the Shadow Foreign Secretary (Aneurin Bevan) famously told the Labour Party Conference that unilateral disarmament would sent a British Foreign Secretary naked into the conference chamber.  After Nagasaki and Hiroshima, it could hardly be argued that there was no knowledge of the effects of radiation on the human body.  Nevertheless, the longer term effects were probably not well understood.  Time has shown the health effects to be potentially very serious.  It is to be hoped that a way can be found to eventually conclude these cases in a satisfactory manner.

This post by Obiter J originally appeared on the Law and Lawyers Blog and is reproduced here with permission and thanks.

David Evans of 1 Crown Office Row is acting for the Ministry of Defence in this case. He is not the author of this post.

1 comment;

  1. Another example of governments going ahead with ‘tests’ under the guise of “It’ll be good in the long run”

    Let’s hope that they won’t ‘interfere’ in the possible outcome.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: