Dying ex-serviceman denied right to sue MoD
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.An ex-serviceman suffering incurable lung cancer contracted after being exposed to asbestos dust as a Royal Navy engineer cannot claim compensation, three Court of Appeal judges ruled yesterday.
Lawyers acting for Ronald Quinn had argued that civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence are able to sue for damages and it was unjust that military personnel cannot. But Lord Justice Swinton Thomas said he "could see no reason" to change regulations barring servicemen from claiming against the Ministry of Defence for personal injury.
Mr Quinn, 65, of Holbeck, Leeds, who served from 1949 to 1956, is the first ex-serviceman to challenge whether the immunity clause of the Crown Proceedings Act applies to serving members of the forces who were exposed to asbestos dust. During his time with the Navy, he carried out service work on ships' boilers, stripping or removing lagging which contained asbestos. He was forced to retire from work in 1979 and in 1982 was diagnosed as having malignant mesothelioma. He is now seriously ill.
The Crown Proceedings Act, covering damages actions against the Crown, excludes members of the armed forces from claiming if it resulted from the condition of the "land, premises, ship, aircraft or vehicles" supplied by the MoD. The appeal judges ruled that Mr Quinn suffered his injury "in consequence of the nature or condition of the ship" and therefore his action fails. They also threw out an alternative argument that there was an employment contract between Mr Quinn and the MoD, which had acted negligently.
Lawyers for Mr Quinn are to petition the House of Lords in an attempt to challenge the judgment.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments