swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Armed Forces - From: 2003 To: 2003
This page lists 17 cases, and was prepared on 03 April 2018.
Matthews v Ministry of Defence; HL 13-Feb-2003 - Times, 14 February 2003; [2003] UKHL 4; [2003] 2 WLR 435; Gazette, 03 April 2003; [2003] 1 AC 1163; 14 BHRC 585; [2003] PIQR P24; [2003] UKHRR 453; [2003] ACD 42; [2003] ICR 247; [2003] 1 All ER 689; [2004] HRLR 2
Regina (Purja) v Ministry of Defence; Regina (Lama) v Same Times, 10 March 2003; [2003] EWHC 445 (Admin)
21 Feb 2003
QBD
Sullivan J
Human Rights, Armed Forces, Discrimination
The applicants served as Gurkha soldiers with the army. They claimed that the pensions they received, being substantially less than those paid to other servicemen were discriminatory. Held: The positions of a retired serviceman in England and one in Nepal were so different as to make the attempted comparison invalid. A better comparison was with retired servicemen in India.
European Court of Human Rights 14
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
R v Her Majesty's Attorney-General for England and Wales [2003] UKPC 22; [2003] EMLR 24
17 Mar 2003
PC
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Millett, Lord Scott of Foscote
Armed Forces
PC (From Court of Appeal of New Zealand) T had been a member of the British SAS. Other members had written books and the Army sought to impose confidentiality contracts or to impose a return to their unit. R signed, but alleged this had been under duress and without resource to independent advice. Held: The finding that the contract was an agreement which anyone who wished to serve or continue serving in the SAS could reasonably have been required to sign was fatal to any suggestion of undue influence or duress. It was a matter for regret that members of SAS were not told explicitly that arrangements could be made for them to obtain legal advice. However, R did not allege that he did not understand the implications of what he was being asked to do. The contract was in simple terms and the explanatory memorandum even plainer. Consideration had been given in not returning R to his base unit. Appeal dismissed. Lord Scott dissenting on undue influence: "the relationship between the appellant and his senior officers and the circumstances, as found by the judge, in which the contract came to be signed by the appellant produced a classic "relationship" case in which undue influence should be presumed."
1 Cites
[ PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
Secretary of State for Defence v Pensions Ombudsman and another Times, 25 April 2003
4 Apr 2003
ChD
Neuberger J
Armed Forces
A member of the armed forces had died. The Department of Social Services had decided that his death was attributable to service for the purposes of the War Pension Scheme. The Defence Council sought to determine again whether his widow was entitled to a family pension under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. Held: The decision of the Social Service department was binding on the Secretary of State. Construing the regulation so as to require a second determination of substantially the same question was not intended, and the Defence Council was not in a position itself to make such an inquiry.
Queens Regulations for the Royal Air Force 3090(1)
1 Citers
A v Ministry of Defence and another Times, 16 May 2003; Gazette, 03 July 2003
16 Apr 2003
QBD
Bell J
Personal Injury, Negligence, Armed Forces
The claimant's father a member of the armed forces had been posted to Germany, and his wife, A's mother had gone with him. A had been born in Germany, but suffered injury at birth through the negligence of the doctor's appointed by the defendant English hospital. Held: Declarations that the defendant and the English hospitals with the duty of appointment of the German doctors were responsible were refused, and that action lay in Germany. The duty to make such an appointment was particular to the Armed Forces, but was limited to the exercise of due care in selection, and did not extend to a duty in respect of the treatment itself. The duty was not non-delegable.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Young v Ministry of Defence [2003] EWCA Civ 817
2 May 2003
CA
Armed Forces, Personal Injury
[ Bailii ]
Mangera v Ministry of Defence Times, 12 July 2003; Gazette, 28 August 2003
19 May 2003
CA
Peter Gibson, Tuckey, Buxton LJJ
Discrimination, Armed Forces, Employment, Human Rights
The claimant was employed by the Army. He claimed that he was racially discriminated against because the army refused to provide him with Halal meat. Held: The 1976 Act first required the applicant to have exhausted the Army's own internal grievance procedures. He had not done so. The employment tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. Article 6 could not be prayed in aid to give the tribunal jurisdiction.
European Convention on Human Rights 6 - Race Relations Act 1976 4(2) 75(8) 75(9) - Race Relations (Complaints to Employment Tribunals) (Armed Forces) Regulations 1997 (1997 No 2161) 2
Mangera v Ministry of Defence [2003] EWCA Civ 801
19 May 2003
CA
Armed Forces, Discrimination, Human Rights
Race Relations Act 1976
[ Bailii ]
Bell, Multiple claimants v Ministry of Defence (1) and (2) Times, 29 May 2003; [2003] EWHC 1134 (QB)
21 May 2003
QBD
Owen J
Armed Forces, Health and Safety, Personal Injury
The claimants sought damages for psychiatric injury for stress and anxiety in being engaged on the behalf of the respondent in the course of combat. Held: The defendant had no duty to maintain a safe system of work for military personnel during combat operations. The term 'combat' must be given a wide meaning. The immunity was not limited to accasions when an enemy was present, but extended to all activities directed against an enemy where the service personnel were at risk of attack themselves.
Crown Proceedings Act 1947
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Secretary of State for Defence v Shaun Francis Rusling [2003] EWHC 1359 (QB); Times, 17 July 2003
13 Jun 2003
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Newman
Administrative, Armed Forces
The applicant sought a war pension, saying he had been affected by 'Gulf War Syndrome.' The Pensions Appeal Tribunal had found the condition to be capable of justifying a pension. The Secretary said the matter had been resolved. Held: The Tribunal had a duty before accepting that a matter was concluded, to ensure that all the issues had been resolved. To do that it was necessary for the Secretary of State to put before the tribunal all relevant material and the full terms of the subsequent decision.
[ Bailii ]
Purja and others v Ministry of Defence [2003] EWCA Civ 1345; Times, 16 October 2003; Gazette, 16 October 2003; [2004] 1 WLR 289
9 Oct 2003
CA
Lord Justice Chadwick Lord Justice Rix Lord Justice Simon Brown
Discrimination, Armed Forces, Human Rights
The applicants were Gurkha soldiers who complained at the differences in treatment of them as against other members of the forces as regards payment, pensions and otherwise, alleged infringement oftheir Article 14 rights, which prevented discrimination on the grounds of national or social origin. Held: In isolation, these soldiers were treated differently and worse. Howeevr the greater cost of living in Britain rather than Nepal justified that difference. There were also other additional benefits for Gurkhas, including longer leave periods. The two groups were not in a comparable position. Rix LJ, dissenting, the restriction which did not allow more than 25% of Gurkha soldiers to have their wives accompany them was discriminatory.
European Convention on Human Rights 14
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Secretary of State for Defence, Regina (on the Application Of) v Pensions Appeal Tribunal [2003] EWHC 2867 (Admin)
4 Nov 2003
Admn
Armed Forces
[ Bailii ]
Hudson and others v H M Treasury and Another [2003] EWCA Civ 1612
18 Nov 2003
CA
Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Lord Justice Judge Lord Justice Simon Brown
Armed Forces
[ Bailii ]
Secretary of State for Defence v Cheryl Ann Hulme [2003] EWCA Civ 1611
19 Nov 2003
CA
Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Sedley Mr Justice Munby
Armed Forces, Benefits
[ Bailii ]
Secretary of State for Defence v Pensions Ombudsman Times, 27 November 2003; Gazette, 22 January 2003
19 Nov 2003
CA
Mummery, Sedley, LJJ, Munby J
Armed Forces
A member of the Armed Forces had died whilst mountaineering. The Department of Social Security had decided that the death was attributable to his service for the purposes of the war pension scheme. The Ombudsman had held himself bound by that decision in the context also of entitlement to a family pension under the armed forces pension scheme. Held: It was a condition of the exercise of the Defence Council panel, that a decision had been made by the Secretary of State for Social Services. It was neither necessary nor permissible for the panel to repeat the exercise.
Queen's Regulations for the Royal Air Force 3090(1)
1 Cites
Cooper v The United Kingdom 48843/99; Times, 12 January 2004; [2003] ECHR 681; (2004) 39 EHRR 171; [2003] ECHR 686
16 Dec 2003
ECHR
Human Rights, Armed Forces
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction)
The claimant had been dismissed from the RAF after a court martial. He complained that the tribunal was not independent, and that his trial was unfair. Held: The court rejected the submission that no court martial could act independently. There was sufficient separation between the various roles and the chain of command, and the claimant's rights were not infringed.
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Grieves v The United Kingdom 57067/00; Times, 12 January 2004; [2003] ECHR 683; ECHR 2003-XII; (2004) 39 EHRR 51; [2003] ECHR 688
16 Dec 2003
ECHR
Human Rights, Armed Forces
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
The claimant had been dismissed from the Royal Navy after a court martial. He complained that the tribunal did not have sufficient independence. Held: The claimant's rights were infringed. Though there was facility to appoint a prosecutor from outside the chain of command, that had not happened in the applicant's case, and he was part of the prosecuting authority. The use of a civilian to administer the procedure helped. There was no permanence to the position of president of the court martial. The judge advocates were serving officers carrying out regular naval duties.
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 - Naval Discipline Act 1957
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]