Matthews v Ministry of Defence
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 January 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWHC 13 (QB) |
| Date | 22 January 2002 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Before Mr Justice Keith.
Proceedings - Crown immunity - armed forces - negligence - Crown Proceedings Act 1947 Section 10 incompatible with Article 6 ECHR - Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987 Section 1 -Wilson v First Country Trust Co Ltd (No2) [2001] 3 WLR 42
Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, which provided for the Crown's immunity from action in respect of claims by members of the Armed Forces who died or were injured in the course of their duties, was incompatible with the fair trial provisions in article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Mr Justice Keith so held in the Queen's Bench Division when determining certain preliminary issues in favour of the claimant, Alan Robert Matthews, in his action for negligence and breach of statutory duty against the Ministry of Defence.
The claimant was employed in the Royal Navy as an electrical engineer between 1955 and 1968. He worked on board various ships.
He claimed that he developed an asbestos related illness in the course of his work, although it was some time in 1999 that he became aware that the illness was attributable to acts or omissions on the part of the ministry.
In proceedings against the ministry for negligence and breach of statutory duty it was common ground that the claimant's claim had to be dismissed if the ministry was successful in its claim for immunity from action in respect of claims brought against it by members of the Armed forces.
The parties agreed that the court should determine as a preliminary issue, inter alia, whether the claimant, as a member of the Armed Forces at the time of the matters complained of, was entitled to rely upon article 6.1 of the Convention guaranteeing the right to a fair trial.
Mr Robert Weir for Mr Matthews; Mr Robert Jay, QC and Ms Helen Mountfield for the ministry.
MR JUSTICE KEITH said that the effect of section 10 of the 1947 Act was to substitute, in those cases where the secretary of state issued the appropriate certificate, a scheme of compensation for the right to sue for damages.
Section 10 was repealed by section 1 of the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987, except in relation to anything suffered by a person in consequence of an act or omission committed before May 15, 1987. The practical effect of that was that section 10 still prevented the claimant from pursuing his claim against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v G (Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening)
...of the separation of powers but not that either the civil or criminal law will have any particular substantive content: see Matthews v Ministry of Defence [2003] UKHL 4; [2003] 1 AC 1163. Likewise, article 6(2)requires him to be presumed innocent of the offence but does not say anything a......
-
Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2)
......The relevant principles were explored recently by your Lordships' House in Matthews v Ministry of Defence [2003] UKHL 4 , [2003] 3 WLR 435 : see, for instance, the pithy ......
-
Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2)
......The relevant principles were explored recently by your Lordships' House in Matthews v Ministry of Defence [2003] UKHL 4 , [2003] 3 WLR 435 : see, for instance, the pithy ......
-
Dublin City Council v Fennell
......The accused in that case, John Flynn, had sought to raise a defence he had neglected to raise in the District Court (related to the making or otherwise of a valid ......