The plaintiff claimed damages for personal injuries arising from medical treatment which he had received at a United States military hospital in the United Kingdom while a serving member of the United States Air Force.
Held: Section 16(2) applied and therefore the case fell to be decided at common law. The acts complained of took place at a military hospital within the control of the United States Air Force. They involved only United States personnel. The operation of a military hospital, although requiring much the same skills as the operation of a civilian hospital, is a recognised military operation. The standard of medical care which the United States should afford its own servicemen was a matter within its own sovereign authority. The maintenance of the base itself was plainly a sovereign activity.
Hoffmann LJ said: ‘The context in which the act took place was the maintenance by the United States of a unit of the United States Air Force in the United Kingdom. This looks about as imperial an activity as could be imagined. But it would be facile to regard this context as determinative of the question. Acts done within that context range from arrangements concerning the flights of the bombers – plainly jure imperii – to ordering milk for the base from a local dairy or careless driving by off-duty airmen on the roads of Suffolk. Both of the latter would seem to me to be jure gestionis, fairly within an area of private law activity. I do not think that there is a single test or ‘bright line’ by which cases on either side can be distinguished. Rather, there are a number of factors which may characterise the act as nearer to or further from the central military activity . . Some acts are wholly military in character, some almost entirely private or commercial and some in between.’
Judges:
Hoffmann LJ
Citations:
Times 24-Nov-1993, Independent 02-Dec-1993, Gazette 26-Jan-1994, [1995] 1 WLR 82, [1994] 4 All ER 203
Statutes:
1951 NATO Agreement, State Immunity Act 1978 16(2)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Holland v Lampen-Wolfe HL 20-Jul-2000
The US established a base at Menwith Hill in Yorkshire, and provided educational services through its staff to staff families. The claimant a teacher employed at the base alleged that a report on her was defamatory. The defendant relied on state . .
Cited – Smith, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) SC 30-Jun-2010
The deceased soldier died of heat exhaustion whilst on active service in Iraq. It was said that he was owed a duty under human rights laws, and that any coroner’s inquest should be a fuller one to satisfy the state’s duty under Article 2.
Cited – The United States of America v Nolan SC 21-Oct-2015
Mrs Nolan had been employed at a US airbase. When it closed, and she was made redundant, she complained that the appellant had not consulted properly on the redundancies. The US denied that it had responsibility to consult, and now appealed.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Damages, Litigation Practice, International
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.83095
