This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Statistics on common law compensation claims against the MODs'.




JULY 2006  

Introduction by Chief Claims Officer 
Executive Summary 
Section One 
- Introduction 
Section Two 
-  Public  Liability Claims  
Section Three 
- Service Personnel Employer’s Liability Claims 
Section Four 
- Civilian Staff Employer’s Liability Claims 
Section Five 
- Motor Claims 
Section Six 
- Clinical Negligence Claims 
Section Seven  - Service Personnel Employment Tribunal Claims 
Section Eight 
- Area Claims Officers 
Section Nine  
- Risk Team 
Section Ten 
- Insurance and Indemnities 
- Novel and Contentious Claims 
- Law and Practice 
Annex A 
- DS&C(Claims) Organisation 
Annex B 
- Top 20 cases settled by DS&C(Claims) 2005/06 
Annex C 
- Top 10 Service Personnel cases settled by RSA   69
Annex D 
- Top 10 Civilian Staff cases settled by RSA/AXA    70
Distribution List 

“He who thinks he can afford to be negligent is not far from being poor” 
Samuel Johnson – 1709-1784. 
The period covered by this report, our ninth, saw another busy year for the 
claims branch.  Overall cash payments were £67.7M.  Over the same period 
receipts of £6.6M was recovered.  A detailed breakdown can be found at Annex 
Although the overall cost of compensation claims against the Ministry of Defence 
is being kept under control it has to be recognised that it remains a significant 
burden on the Defence Budget and represents a significant diversion of 
resources away from defence priorities.  As well as the compensation actually 
paid each year there are the legal costs to consider which will normally add 
about 15% to the cost of a claim. However more importantly there are many 
additional indirect costs that will arise from any accident including the cost of 
investigating the incident, damage to equipment, lost man days, the loss of skill 
and expertise, and the cost of recruiting and training replacement personnel. 
How much these will all add to the overall cost of a claim will vary according to 
the circumstances, but particularly where there is damage to expensive military 
assets, this may run into many millions of pounds.  These indirect costs fall to 
individual Top Level Budgets as opposed to the Claims budget. 
Compensation continues to attract much publicity in the national media, with 
claims against public bodies, in particular, being a magnet for articles suggesting 
that a compensation culture has developed in the country, where individual 
responsibility has been replaced by a culture of blame.  In June last year the 
Lord Chancellor announced a programme of work entitled ‘Tackling the 
Compensation Culture’. Its purpose was to underline the Government’s 
determination to counter the widely held belief in some quarters that 
compensation should be available whenever someone suffers a loss, regardless 
of the merit of their claim. In doing so it recognises that, in line with the duty on 
individuals to take reasonable care towards each other, those with a genuine 
claim must be able to enforce their right to compensation. However, it seeks to 
discourage the view that seeking financial redress through litigation is always the 
answer, an attitude that may threaten confidence in the legal system and 
undermines the responsibility that individuals have to look after themselves and 
to mitigate any losses they might suffer.  
In addition to normal core business, we have been involved in some legally 
challenging issues, particularly in respect of claims emanating from Iraq.  The 
principles of combat immunity and rules of engagement, and their application in 
relation to claims from Iraqi civilians, as well as from members of HM Forces, 
have proved demanding. 
Alternative Dispute Resolution in the form of Mediation or Counsel-to-Counsel 
conferences is used where there is some evidence to support a claim.  Mediation 
involves the employment of an independent person, the mediator, to facilitate 

negotiations between the parties in an effort to reach a mutually acceptable 
conclusion. The process is voluntary, flexible and can be entered into, or 
terminated, at the discretion of either party. Counsel-to-Counsel conferences, on 
the other hand, are generally used in those cases where liability is accepted but 
agreement needs to be reached over the level of damages. A round table 
consultation is arranged where the Department is represented by counsel, the 
Chief or Senior Claims Officer, and Treasury Solicitor.  
I continue to place great onus on ensuring that Claims staff possess the 
appropriate skills and knowledge to be effective claims managers. To this end 
they attend a structured series of legal training courses during the year, provided 
by external legal training providers.  With an eye on training, a joint Ministry of 
Defence and Treasury Solicitor conference was held on 31 March entitled 
‘Thinking Strategically’. Representatives from the Ministry of Defence’s 
commercial claims handlers, panel solicitors, as well as subject experts from 
within the Ministry of Defence, were in attendance.  Speakers from DS&C 
(Claims) and Treasury Solicitor provided a selection of informative presentations 
on a variety of topics, which received very positive feedback from those 
I commend the 2005/2006 Claims Annual Report to all readers.  My objective in 
publishing the report is twofold.  Firstly, to inform readers of the activities of 
DS&C (Claims) during the period of the report;  secondly, and possibly more 
importantly, to underline the importance of risk management and health & safety, 
and the consequence to the individuals concerned, as well as the Department, of 
not getting it right.  We all have a personal responsibility for health and safety, 
and it is incumbent on us all that accidents, which are often avoidable, do not 
Additional copies of this report are available from the DS&C(Claims) Focal Point, 
Zone A, 7th Floor, St George’s Court, 2-12 Bloomsbury Way, London WC1A 2SH 
(Tel: 020 7305 3348/3334 or Fax: 020 7305 4166).  Copies can also be found on 
the Ministry of Defence Intranet or supplied on Disk. 

Total DS&C(Claims) cash payments in the year 2005/2006 was £67.7 
million.  Over the same period receipts of £6.6 million was recovered. 
Highest claim settled in year was £6.0 million. 
At 1 April 2006, the total number of new claims lodged with DS&C(Claims) 
or the Department’s commercial claims handlers in year was 5665. 
621 Service personnel employer’s liability claims were settled at a total cost 
of £26.3 million.  
1290 civilian employer’s liability claims were settled at a total cost of £21.9 
533 public liability claims were settled at a total cost of £8.25 million. 
3645 third party motor claims in the UK were settled at a total cost of £6.4 
28 clinical negligence claims were settled at a total cost of £4.5 million. 
2047 intentions to claim are registered for those alleged to be suffering from 
Gulf Veterans’ Illnesses. 
10.  ACO North West Europe closed 701 cases at a total cost of £1.09 million 
11.    ACO Cyprus closed 582 cases at a total cost of £273,000. 
12.  ACO Northern Ireland settled 182 cases at a total cost of £847,000. 
13.  ACO Balkans settled 41 cases at a total cost of £118,000. 
14.  ACO Falkland Islands settled 3 cases at a total cost of £4,500 
15.  ACO Iraq settled 393 cases at a total cost of £654,000. 
16.  ACO Afghanistan settled 15 cases at a total cost of £34,000. 

“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” 
Victor Borge – 1909-2000 
1.1  The Ministry of Defence Claims branch is primarily responsible for 
processing common-law, non-contractual compensation claims against and on 
behalf of the Ministry of Defence at home and abroad.  It is not responsible for 
contractual, quasi-contractual, sales or estates matters.  It is headed by the Chief 
Claims Officer (Band B1) and four staff at Band C1. The Chief Claims Officer 
reports through DS&C and DGS&S to the Personnel Director. Details of the 
staffing and work of the Claims branch are at Annex A. 
In addition to being responsible for processing common law compensation 
claims, Claims branch also has a number of other important responsibilities such 
as providing claims policy advice, handling some Service personnel employment 
tribunal claims, handling claims against foreign forces based in the UK and 
providing advice on insurance and indemnities.  It undertakes a variety of 
secretariat tasks and during the period of this report dealt with a large number of 
Parliamentary Questions (23), Ministerial Correspondence (63), Treat Official 
Correspondence (80) and Freedom of Information requests (30).   
Area Claims Officers (ACOs) and their staff are located in areas where 
there is a sizeable defence presence – Afghanistan, the Balkans, Cyprus, Iraq, 
North West Europe, Northern Ireland and the South Atlantic Islands.   Area 
Claims Officers are accountable to their Command Secretary, but have a 
professional responsibility to the Chief Claims Officer. 
It is important that staff at all levels within Claims branch acquire the skills, 
knowledge and experience needed to enable them to contribute effectively to the 
goals of the organisation.  Claims staff members attend a series of structured 
specialist training seminars provided by external legal trainers covering all 
aspects of common law compensation.  In recognition of the specialised nature 
of the work, a functional competence framework has been introduced to focus on 
the key skills and training required. In addition, staff members have studied for 
law degrees and diplomas, professional insurance examinations and have 
qualified as accredited mediators. 

When compensation claims are received they are considered on the basis 
of whether or not the Ministry of Defence has a legal liability to pay 
compensation.  Where there is a proven legal liability, compensation is paid.  To 
deal with cases on any basis other than legal liability requires difficult subjective 
judgments to be made that would undoubtedly lead to inconsistency and 
1.6  The amount of compensation paid is determined by common law 
principles which, broadly, take account, as appropriate, of an individual’s pain 
and suffering, degree of injury, property losses, past and future financial losses, 
level of care required.  Levels of compensation including these elements can 
vary greatly depending on an individual’s circumstances. Advice is sought where 
necessary from Treasury Solicitor’s Department, and our commercial claims 
handlers’ panel solicitors for cases brought in England and Wales; the Crown 
Solicitor in Northern Ireland; and Morton Fraser Solicitors, the Department’s legal 
adviser in Scotland.  Junior and leading counsel are also consulted on high 
profile or complex cases or where a point of law needs to be explored.  The 
overwhelming majority of cases are settled through amicable negotiation without 
Claimants having to take the Ministry of Defence to court. 
1.7   In accordance with Treasury policy, the Ministry of Defence does not 
normally make ex-gratia compensation payments in respect of occurrences 
within the UK.  There are, however, a small number of exceptions: i.e. claims 
arising from military low flying aircraft; claims from volunteers who are injured 
during research work and for certain miscarriages of justice affecting Service 
personnel.  In certain overseas areas, because of the provisions of the NATO 
Status of Forces Agreement and other international agreements, the Ministry of 
Defence is obliged to consider making ex-gratia payments following off duty torts.  
Such claims arise from a wide variety of incidents ranging from minor criminal 
damage to, exceptionally, rape and murder.  Whilst there is no legal obligation, 
each case is decided on its merits.  A number of factors are taken into account 
including: the seriousness of the offence, the practice of the host country in 
identical circumstances, the degree of financial hardship to the claimant as a 
result of the incident, the political implications - locally and nationally - on 
relations with the host country, and the availability and/or financial ability of the 
wrong-doer to make satisfactory restitution to the claimant.   


“Common sense is in spite of, not as a result of education” 
Victor Hugo – 1802-1885 
2.1   The majority of claims submitted to the Public Liability Group are for 
personal injury or property damage from members of the public who have either 
been injured on Ministry of Defence property or have sustained injuries whilst 
taking part in the various public relations and recruiting activities run by the three 
Services e.g. injuries sustained on assault courses. The total paid this year is 
significantly less than that paid last year 
2.2    Property damage claims usually emanate from personnel working and 
living in service accommodation who, for example, have had their belongings 
damaged by the poor maintenance of the properties they occupy. The highest 
property damage claim settled this year was for £33,000.  In the main, claims 
arise as a result of property damaged due to damp from poor insulation and 
vehicles damaged by pot holes, speed bumps and the improper operation of 
security barriers and ramps at check points. Whilst in excess of 250 claims of this 
nature were received this year, they are generally small in value, the average 
claim being settled at approximately £1,000. 
Number of claims received 
Number of claims settled 
Amount paid  
Claims received
Amount paid
Claims settled
2.3    Whilst the number of property damage claims received this year is very 
similar to those received in FY 04/05 there has been a marked decrease in the 
number of personal injury claims received, a drop of some 35%.  This is due, in 

part, to a significant reduction in the number of claims received from Iraq this 
2.4    The Public Liability Group continues to handle death and serious injury 
claims from Iraqi civilians.  48 new claims of this nature were received in this 
financial year.  Due to the nature of the claims, their high profile and the fact that 
two British law firms have been instructed to handle a number of the claims, a 
decision was taken in 2004 that these claims should be handled by the Public 
Liability Group so that a consistent approach was taken and the claims handled 
in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules. Less serious injury claims (e.g. 
those resulting from RTAs) and property damage claims emanating from Iraq, 
continue to be handled locally by the Area Claims Officer in Basrah.    
2.5    The Claims Public Liability Group also deals with public liability claims from 
Northern Ireland provided they are of a political and/or sensitive nature. Claims 
are normally received from members of the public who have had a dispute with 
members of the armed forces whilst in support of the Police Service of Northern 
Ireland (PSNI). The majority of claims are for alleged assault (including plastic 
baton round injuries), harassment or wrongful arrest. There was a slight increase 
in the number of claims received this year. The large increase in the amount paid 
was due to three high value claims, one of which settled at over £400,000 and 
related to a shooting incident in 1998.    

Number of claims received 
Number of claims settled 

Amount paid  
Claims received
Claims settled
Amount paid

Maritime Claims 
2.6   Maritime claims, by and against the Ministry of Defence, result mainly from 
collisions, oil spillage, gunnery/missile firing incidents, damage to static property, 
wash damage, fishing gear damage and the salvage and recovery of Ministry of 
Defence property.  Maritime law is complex and much of the legislation dealing 
with the law of the sea was enacted more than one hundred years ago. 
Number of property claims 
30 12 16 
received by MOD 
Number of property claims settled 

Amount paid  
Number of salvage claims 
4 4 

received by MOD 
Number of salvage claims settled  
2 3 

Amount paid  
Property Claims received
Property Claims settled
Salvage Claims received

Property Claims paid
Salvage Claims paid
Salvage Claims settled
2.7   The Ministry of Defence provides assistance to ships in distress in UK 
waters and regularly helps in other parts of the world.  If as the result of the 
assistance given a vessel is salved, the Department is entitled to claim salvage 
based on the value of the ship and its cargo.  Part of the amount in salvage is 
paid to the crew of the assisting ship or aircraft in accordance with the Merchant 
Shipping Act 1864.  It is Ministry of Defence policy not to claim salvage when life 
saving has been the main aim of the assistance given.  Although uncommon, 
salvage claims by members of the public for the successful recovery of our 
property can likewise be made against the Department.  

 2003/04 2004/05 
Number of maritime recovery and salvage claims 
3 2 1 
initiated by MOD 
Number of maritime recovery and salvage claims 
3 0 1 
Amount recovered  
Claims received
Claims settled
Amount paid
2.8   The large sum recovered in FY 2005/06 was as a result of a collision 
between a cross-channel ferry and HMS St Albans, a Type 23 frigate.  
2.9    In addition to the work undertaken by Claims branch, Flag Officer Scotland, 
Northern England and Northern Ireland (FOSNNI) and Flag Officer Sea Training 
(FOST) have delegated authority to settle claims of up to £8,000 per fishing gear 
claim, £5,000 per collision claim and £1,000 per oil spillage claim. 
Number of claims settled by 
23 20 25 
Amount paid by FOSNNI  
Number of claims settled by 
10 33 13 
Amount paid by FOST  

Total amount paid 

Claims settled FOSNNI
Claims settled FOST
Claims paid FOSNNI
Claims paid FOST
2.10    The activities of low flying military aircraft can sometimes give rise to 
claims for compensation from members of the public.  The most common claims 
are those involving injury to, or death of, livestock and/or damage to property, 
although claims are sometimes received for personal injury.  Many of the claims 
are for relatively small amounts but low flying military aircraft activity is an 
emotive issue in some areas of the country.  Such claims are handled on an ex-
 basis but are investigated in the same way as if the principles of common 
law legal liability applied. The foundation of this approach is the Royal 
Prerogative, which gives an absolute right for all military flying activity, and, 
therefore, an injured party has no legal rights of redress for compensation.  Lord 
Drumalbyn set out this approach in a Lords Written Answer on 22 November 
1971 (Official Report Column 888): 
‘… No remedies exist in law against any military aircraft flying by virtue of 
the Royal Prerogative for the purpose of the defence of the Realm or of 
training or of maintaining the efficiency of the Armed Forces of the Crown.  
The ... Ministry of Defence will, however, pay compensation on an ex 
gratia basis if satisfied that the damage has been caused by a military 

2.11   A procedure has been in place since 1994, following consultation with 
various farming unions and landowners’ associations, for dealing with claims 
relating to death or injury to livestock.  The procedure was most recently updated 
in December 1999 after a round of consultations with the NFU, Country 
Landowners’ Association and other similar bodies.  In accordance with the 
Livestock and Animal Compensation Claims Guidance the claimant should report 
the incident promptly, provide veterinary evidence and a fully quantified claim. 
2.12   On a local level, where public relations play an important role, RNAS, AAC 
and RAF Station Commanders have delegated authority to settle straightforward 
property damage claims up to the value of £200 where the claimant lives within 
two miles of the airfield.  In addition, the Regional Community Relations Officers 

(RCROs) have been given authority from the Chief Claims Officer to recommend 
fast track settlements for simple straightforward claims up to £250. 
Number of claims received 
Number of claims settled 
Amount paid 
Claims received
Amount paid
Claims settled
2.13   The significant difference in expenditure between FY 2005/6 and previous 
years can be largely explained by two high-value settlements.  
2.14   The Defence Estates organisation (DE) has delegated authority to settle 
property damage claims arising from military aircraft crashes in the UK within 
delegated financial authority of up to £50,000 per claim.  DE personnel perform 
valuable work in the aftermath of an air crash and have the expertise to assess 
many different types of damage from forestry to buildings.  This was well 
illustrated following a RAF Hawk crash at Shap, Cumbria, in October 1999 where 
a number of properties were severely affected by debris from the crash.  The 
total amount paid by DE in respect of this crash was in the region of £245,000.  
Fortunately no military aircraft crashes have resulted in any claims from the 
public this year. 
Number of claims settled by 
6 1 Nil 
Amount paid 

Claims received
Amount paid
2.15   Claims PLG handles third party claims by and against Visiting Forces 
based in or visiting the United Kingdom under the provisions of Article VIII of the 
NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and Section 9 of the Visiting Forces 
Act 1952.  Such claims could be on behalf of any of the states who are 
signatories to the agreement or who are invited to train in the UK, but primarily 
involve the USA, Holland, Belgium and Germany.  Claims are investigated and 
handled in exactly the same way as if British Forces were involved and, if 
satisfied that the Visiting Force is liable, the Ministry of Defence pays 
compensation on its behalf.  In the case of NATO countries, the Sending State is 
billed for 75% of the amount paid, the United Kingdom paying the other 25%.  
2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 
Number of visiting forces claims 
102 78  59 
Number of visiting forces claims 
91 48 59 
Compensation Paid 
£390,400 £210,000 £463,763 
Claims received
Claims settled
Amount paid

Visiting Forces claims can be categorised as follows: 
Maritime Personal 
RTAs Misc Total 
5 9 1  13 31 

3 9 1  9  37 

Amount Paid  
£3,239 £230,247 £41,894 Nil 
MOD Contribution  
£1,650 £45,446  £810  £57,562  £1,046  Nil 
*   £150,000 of the total relates to two interim payments made to the widows of 
two pilots killed in a flying accident.   The claims are on-going. 
Low Flying
Claims received
Claims settled
2.16     Where the Ministry of Defence sustains loss or damage to equipment, or 
property, which has been caused by a third party, Claims PLG will seek to 
recover those losses from the third party.   The main causes for taking action 
against third parties are occasions where MOD static property has been 
damaged by vehicles, fire, water or the negligence of a contractor. 
2.17    Less often, Claims PLG will seek to recover compensation from third 
parties overseas following road traffic accidents and will also assist visiting forces 
to make recoveries in the UK if requested to do so. 
2.18    The number of recoveries processed by Claims PLG in each of the last 
three financial years is shown in the table below.   Two fairly large recoveries 
were made during the year, one of over £40,000 for damage to a Tucano aircraft 
at Carlisle Airport during an incorrect refuelling procedure and another of 
£56,000 from a contractor whose sub-contractor allowed a crane to be stolen 
while it was parked up overnight on a trailer whilst in transit from Marchwood 
Military Port to Yorkshire. 

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 
Number of claims notified 
Number of successful 
21 17 15 
Amount recovered  
Claims notified
Successful recoveries
Amount recovered


“We all know how the size of sums of money appears to vary in a remarkable 
way according as they are being paid in or paid out” 
Sir Julian Huxley – 1887-1975 
3.1   Prior to 1948, it was not possible for any individual to sue the Crown. This 
was because of the long held principle that ‘the Crown could do no wrong’.  
However, in 1947, legislation was passed enabling the Crown to be sued for acts 
of negligence.  Section 10 of that legislation, The Crown Proceedings Act 1947, 
prevented Service personnel who were on duty, or on any land, premises, ship, 
etc. being used for the purposes of the Armed Forces, suing for compensation.  
This position remained until 15 May 1987 when The Crown Proceedings (Armed 
Forces) Act 1987 repealed Section 10 of The Crown Proceedings Act 1947.  
Since then Service personnel have, like any other employee, been entitled to sue 
the Ministry of Defence for compensation where they have suffered as a result of 
the Department’s negligence.  The repeal of Section 10 was not made 
retrospective.  See also the case of Matthews v MOD below at paragraph 3.32. 
3.2   Royal and Sun Alliance plc have been handling most personal injury claims 
from Service and ex-Service personnel on behalf of the Ministry of Defence since 
1 July 1996 when they were first awarded the contract following competition. 
RSA were re-awarded the contract for a further 5-year period as from 1 May 
2002 following a competitive tender exercise. The Employer’s Liability Group 
within DS&C(Claims) handles claims notified before that date, together with 
those of a political or sensitive nature.  The number of claims and amounts paid 
are shown below: 
Number of claims received 
Number of claims settled 
Amount paid  

Claims received
Claims settled

Amount paid
3.3     Several claims being handled in-house relate to service during Op TELIC 
and have been examined to establish whether a legal defence on the basis of 
“combat immunity” was appropriate. Such a defence provides immunity for the 
Ministry of Defence in that a soldier does not owe his fellow soldier a duty of care 
in tort when engaging the enemy in battle conditions in the course of hostilities, 
nor is there any duty on the Ministry of Defence, in such a situation, to maintain a 
safe system of work. This ruling was made by the Court of Appeal in the case of 
Mulcahy -v- Ministry of Defence. This immunity was extended by Mr Justice 
Owen in the PTSD Group Action judgment in relation to immunity during the 
planning and preparation for military operations and during peacekeeping 
activities, but was narrowed in Bici -v- Ministry of Defence when the judge ruled 
that any threat must be imminent and serious. 
3.4     Following investigation and legal advice, the vast majority of these cases 
have been accepted and some have now been settled whilst others are being 
progressed towards settlement. All claims in which a combat immunity defence 
must be considered are handled by DS&C(Claims) as opposed to the 
Department’s contracted claims handlers.  
3.5  Compensation for UK Nuclear Test Veterans was the subject of an 
Adjournment Debate held in Westminster Hall at the Houses of Parliament on 4 
December 2002. At the Debate, the then Under Secretary for State, Dr Lewis 
Moonie, restated the Ministry of Defence’s position that there is no scientific or 
medical evidence which currently shows that the health or other physical 
problems suffered by the test veterans, or their children or grandchildren, could 
be attributed to their participation in the test programme.  He did however invite 
the nuclear test veterans to present any new evidence that supported their case 
for an independent review. 
3.6    A third National Radiological Protection Board report, carried out 
independently of the Ministry of Defence report, was published in early 2003.  
This supported the conclusions reached in the previous reports published in 

1988 and 1993 which concluded that overall levels of mortality and cancer 
incidence in the nuclear weapons test participants have continued to be similar 
to those in a matched control group, and for overall mortality to be lower than 
expected from national rates.   
3.7   Two firms of solicitors (Alexander Harris Solicitors in Altrincham and Clark, 
Willmot and Clark Solicitors in Bristol) announced in July 2002 that they had 
been jointly instructed by British, New Zealand and Fijian nuclear test veterans to 
act on their behalf in an action against the Ministry of Defence for damages. 
They secured legal aid from the Legal Services Commission to pursue the 
matter. On 15 November 2004 they sent a Letter of Claim to the Ministry of 
Defence which indicated that they represented some 655 British Veteran 
Servicemen, 130 Fijian Veteran Servicemen and 213 New Zealand Veteran 
Servicemen who are potential claimants in a Group Action against the Ministry of 
Defence.  Investigations into the allegations, which include failure to consider the 
health, safety and well being of the servicemen when planning and conducting 
the tests, failure to warn participants adequately of the potential damage and 
breach of statutory duty, are ongoing.  A range of cancerous and non-cancerous 
pathologies are alleged to have been caused by exposure to radiation generated 
by the nuclear tests.     
3.8   The Legal Services Commission withdrew funding from the Group Action in 
August 2005. No appeal against this decision was made and the two firms of 
solicitors who were involved have withdrawn from the action.   Although some 
claimants have decided not to pursue their claims any further, the case is 
continuing with the remaining claimants being represented by two solicitors 
acting for individuals.  
3.9   A stay, until 1 September 2006, for the claimants to issue proceedings has 
been agreed between the parties. Should proceedings be issued, detailed 
Particulars of Claim and supporting evidence will then have to be served by 8 
January 2007. It has been further agreed that the Ministry of Defence will then 
have eighteen months from the service of the Particulars of Claim to serve a 
3.10 The Ministry of Defence is a member of the nuclear industry’s 
Compensation Scheme for Radiation Linked Diseases. This is a ‘no fault’ 
scheme where there is no requirement for claimants to prove negligence on the 
part of the Department in order to receive compensation.  The scheme, which the 
Ministry of Defence joined in 1994, was set up, and is run jointly by, the 
participating employers and Trade Unions; it does not affect claimants’ rights to 
seek legal redress.  The scheme provides for the assessment of a case, on an 
agreed technical basis, in order to determine the probability that a cancer 
contracted by a worker could have been caused by occupational radiation 
exposure.  The amount of compensation payable in a successful case is 
determined by negotiation between the solicitors representing the parties, based 
upon the same guidelines that would apply if the case had proceeded to Court.  
The scheme provides for payments to be made for lower levels of causation 

probability than would be allowed by the Courts.  In addition the scheme 
provides ‘full’ payment of compensation at a level of 50% causation probability 
and lesser payments down to a level of 20% causation probability.  In this way 
the assessment of a case recognises that, even below the balance of probability, 
there is a chance that exposure to occupational ionising radiation played a role in 
the disease. 
3.11   During financial year 2005/06, the scheme received seventeen new claims 
from former Ministry of Defence employees (military and civilian) who believe 
their illness is associated with exposure to occupational ionising radiation. Over 
the same period, 21 claims were repudiated as failing to meet the minimum 20% 
causation probability and one claim was settled.  
3.12  LAC Ronald Maddison died at the Chemical Defence Experimental 
Establishment at Porton Down on 6 May 1953.  He was taking part in a trial in 
which the nerve agent GB (Sarin) was applied to his forearm through two layers 
of cloth. The original inquest into this tragic death returned a verdict of Death by 
3.13   On 18 November 2002, the Lord Chief Justice ruled that the original 
inquest into the death of Mr Maddison be quashed and a new inquest held. 
Consequently on 5 May 2004, the new inquest was opened by the Coroner for 
Wiltshire & Swindon.   The jury returned a verdict on 15 November 2004 stating 
that Mr Maddison had been Unlawfully Killed.   
3.14   The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence wrote to the 
solicitor acting for the Maddison family on 20 December 2004 apologising for the 
fact that Ministry of Supply employees at the Chemical Defence Experimental 
Establishment at Porton Down Wiltshire proceeded with a test involving Mr 
Maddison on 6 May 1953, which led to his death. A ministerial statement was 
made in Parliament on 21 December 2004, publicly announcing an apology. 
3.15   In addition the Minister also indicated that the Ministry of Defence would 
consider favourably any claim for compensation from Mr Maddison’s family on 
the basis of proceeding with a test on 6 May 1953, which led to his death and 
which had been undertaken despite the fact that an identical test on 4 May 1953 
had resulted in an adverse blood test in one serviceman. The Ministry of Defence 
accepted that Section 10(1) of the Crown Proceedings Act would not afford legal 
protection to the Department because the tests were under the direction and 
control of civilians, and not members of the Armed Forces.   
3.16   In the meantime, the Ministry of Defence announced a challenge to the 
inquest verdict by means of a Judicial Review.  This challenge was set to take 
place on 13 February 2006 in the High Court.   However, a matter of days before 
the hearing was due to commence, Counsel representing the Maddison family 
offered a possible resolution of the issues to be addressed at the Judicial 
Review.   This proposal amounted to the Ministry of Defence agreeing that the 
Unlawful Killing verdict should stand.  However, the grounds on which this verdict 

was reached by the Jury should be varied so that the finding of Unlawful Killing 
rested solely on the acceptance of gross negligence in the conduct and planning 
of the experiment.  In return, the Maddison family would agree that there was 
insufficient evidence for the Coroner to invite the Jury to decide whether Mr 
Maddison did, or did not, give his consent to take part in the experiment that 
killed him, or whether the Porton Down scientists were grossly negligent with 
regards to obtaining Mr Maddison’s consent.      
3.17   This proposal, which the Ministry of Defence found acceptable, was put to 
the presiding judges set to hear the Judicial Review who endorsed the terms of 
the agreement, commenting that it was ‘a sensible and responsible compromise’.   
3.18   With regard to the claim for compensation, the Ministry of Defence 
received notification from the solicitors acting for Mr Maddison’s next-of-kin about 
the valuation they placed on this claim.  A meeting, involving legal 
representatives of both parties, was held on 18 March 2005 in an attempt to 
resolve this specific claim and also to discuss potential claims from some 500+ 
other former Service volunteers relating to biological and chemical research tests 
at Porton Down in the 1950s and 1960s.  Settlement of the compensation claim 
has since been achieved.  
3.19   During FY 2005/2006 compensation totalling £10,000.00 was paid to three 
veterans in connection with their participation in other tests at Porton Down.   
3.20   The Ministry of Defence accepts that some veterans of the 1990/1991 Gulf 
Conflict have become ill and that many believe that this ill-health is unusual and 
directly related to their participation in the conflict.  The Ministry of Defence has 
received approximately 2,000 notifications of ‘intentions to claim’ from Gulf 
veterans or their dependants but, as yet, the claimants’ solicitors have served no 
writs or claims of sufficient detail for the Department to be able to start 
considering these claims.    
3.21   As mentioned in previous Claims Annual Reports, DS&C(Claims) is aware 
that solicitors acting for Gulf veterans have received legal advice from Queen’s 
Counsel about the prospects of successfully bringing claims for compensation 
against the Ministry of Defence. The Legal Services Commission, who had been 
providing public funding in the form of legal aid, dismissed the appeal for 
continued funding on 21 March 2006.     
3.22   Further to the publication of Lord Lloyd’s report into Gulf Veterans Illness, 
the Department received requests to set up an ex-gratia scheme to deal with 
claims for Gulf War-related illness. The Department does not consider there is 
any case, or justification, to do this. In accordance with HM Treasury guidance 
the Ministry of Defence considers claims for compensation on the basis of legal 
liability.  No such legal liability exists in the case of Gulf veterans, and to treat 
them as a special case and establish an ex-gratia scheme would set an 
unwelcome precedent which would undoubtedly been seen as unfair by other 
groups of veterans. 

3.23   Gulf veterans can, and do, receive compensation in the form of war 
pensions and ‘attributable’ armed forces pensions which are already available to 
ex-service personnel who suffer illness or injury as a result of their service.    
3.24  The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the 
Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 
1950 European Convention on Human Rights.    Since 1 November 1998 it has 
sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of Judges to that of the 
States party to the Convention.  The Court examines the admissibility and merits 
of applications submitted to it.  It sits in chambers of seven Judges or, in 
exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of seventeen Judges.     
3.25  On 19 October 2005 the Grand Chamber delivered judgment in an 
important Ministry of Defence case.  The case was brought by Mr T M Roche 
who joined the Army in 1953 and was discharged in 1968. In 1987 he developed 
high blood pressure, hypertension, bronchitis and bronchial asthma.  Mr Roche 
maintained that his health problems were as a direct result of his participation in 
mustard and nerve gas tests conducted at Porton Down in 1962 and 1963.      
3.26   From 1987, Mr Roche actively sought access to his records relating to 
events at Porton Down, but with only limited success.  In 1991 he submitted a 
claim for a Service pension which was rejected in 1992 by the Secretary of State 
for Defence because he had not demonstrated a causal link between the tests at 
Porton Down and his medical condition.   
3.27   After protracted attempts to recover the documents of which he sought 
disclosure, Mr Roche made an application to the European Court of Human 
Rights in 1996 complaining that he was being denied adequate access to 
information concerning the tests he underwent at Porton Down    He also 
complained that a Section 10 Certificate issued by the Secretary of State for 
Defence in 1995 (which effectively blocked any civil proceedings being pursued) 
constituted a violation of his right of access to court.   
3.28   In its written judgment the ECHR upheld his complaint about the 
Department’s failure to provide full and prompt disclosure, which in its view must 
have caused Mr Roche feelings of frustration, uncertainty and anxiety. 
Compensation and payment of his legal costs in the sum of approximately 
£36,000 was awarded.   Importantly, the Court made no criticism with regards to 
the issuing of the Section 10 Certificate.    

3.29    Prior to 15 May 1987, Service personnel were prevented from pursuing 
claims for compensation from the Ministry of Defence by Section 10 of The 
Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (Crown Immunity prevented claims from being 
made prior to 1947). However, Section 10 was repealed by The Crown 
Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987. Since the change in the law, which was 
not made retrospective, Service personnel who suffer loss or injury as a result of 
negligence by the Ministry of Defence have been entitled to make common law 
claims for compensation. When compensation claims are submitted, they are 
considered on the basis of whether or not the Ministry of Defence has a legal 
liability to pay compensation. Where there is a legal liability to pay compensation 
we do so.    
3.30   In the case of members of the Armed Forces being exposed to asbestos 
dust and fibre during service before 15 May 1987, they are prevented by law 
from receiving compensation from the Ministry of Defence. The legal position is 
that even if an ex-Serviceman only now discovers he has an asbestos related 
disease, he cannot sue for compensation if exposure was before the repeal of 
Section 10 of The Crown Proceedings Act 1947. Given that controls over the use 
of asbestos were introduced in 1970, this is, and will be, the case for the vast 
majority of ex-Service claimants (the time between exposure to asbestos dust 
and fibre and the first signs of disease is typically between fifteen and 40+ 
3.31   At the time of the passage of the 1987 Bill, the question of retrospection 
was debated and motions to allow members of the Armed Forces, past and 
present, to pursue claims for injury or death suffered in incidents since 1947 
were moved.  They were however defeated or withdrawn. The view that 
prevailed at the time was that there would have been no logical point at which to 
draw a line, short of trying to cover all incidents and all types of injury going back 
to 1947 and that to make the Act retrospective would create many new examples 
of unfairness and injustice.  
3.32  Mr Matthews, an ex-serviceman suffering from an asbestos related 
disease, challenged this position on the basis that Section 10 of the Crown 
Proceedings Act 1947 is incompatible with the European Convention of Human 
Rights.  Mr Matthews alleged a breach of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 6 (due 
process rights) of the Human Rights Act. The case under Article 2 was that, by 
exposing him to asbestos dust, the Crown was in breach of its obligation to take 
positive steps to safeguard his health. The case under Article 6 was that Section 
10 of the Crown Proceedings Act is a 'blanket' immunity which deprives him of 
his right of access to the Court. The matter was heard in the High Court on 10 
and 11 December 2001. Mr Justice Keith handed down judgment on 22 January 
2002 in favour of the Claimant. The Department, however, secured leave to take 
this matter expeditiously to the Court of Appeal and the hearing took place on 22 
and 23 April 2002. In their judgment, handed down on 29 May 2002, the Court of 
Appeal overturned Mr Justice Keith’s decision, but granted leave for Mr 
Matthews to take the matter to the House of Lords. Their Lordships considered 

the matter on 13 and 14 January 2003 and handed down a unanimous judgment 
on 13 February in favour of the Ministry of Defence. The five Law Lords agreed 
that there had never been the right in national law that Mr Matthews had sought 
to assert i.e. that a member of the Armed Forces could sue the Crown in tort, and 
that he has no “civil right” that Article 6 of the European Convention on Human 
Rights can operate to protect.   
3.33   Mr Matthews subsequently made an application to the European Court of 
Human Rights (ECHR). In light of the ECHR’s judgment promulgated in the case 
of  Roche v The  United Kingdom (detailed above), and which has significant 
bearing on this case, the solicitors acting for Mr Matthews indicated, in January 
2006, that they were now going to withdraw Mr Matthews’s application to the 
ECHR.   This effectively brings matters to a conclusion.  
3.34   On a more general note, is  the decision handed down by the Court of 
Appeal, on 26 January 2006, in the ‘pleural plaques test  litigation’  case,    
Grieves and others v FT Everard & Sons Ltd and others.   By a majority of 2:1 
the Court of Appeal (headed by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips) found that 
there can be no compensation for asymptomatic pleural plaques which are 
accompanied by the usual risks of future asbestos related disease or feelings of 
worry.   The Court of Appeal accepted that their decision went against 20 years 
of practice by courts at first instance, but as a matter of policy ruled: 
• damages should not be recoverable where exposure produces 
physiological change which is neither visible or symptomatic and in no 
way impairs bodily function; 
•  there can be no free standing recovery of damages for the risk of 
developing future disease alone; 
•  there is no duty on an employer to take reasonable care not to cause 
worry or anxiety and there are control mechanisms which restrict the 
circumstances in which an employer can be liable for causing foreseeable 
psychiatric harm. 
3.35   Permission was granted for an appeal to be made to the House of Lords 
on the issue of liability, given the difficult principles involved and the very large 
number of similar pleural plaques claims. 
3.36    Whilst this judgment was not directly linked to a specific case involving the 
Ministry of Defence, the judgment does, however, have significant implications 
for all employers, including the Ministry of Defence, in relation to all claims 
brought by former employees with pleural plaques.  In the light of the judgment, 
and pending the outcome of an appeal to the House of Lords, the Ministry of 
Defence, in line with the general position adopted by industry, has ceased 
making offers of damages to former employees diagnosed with pleural plaques. 
In order to address concerns by some claimants regarding limitation, and to 
ensure that no claimant is statute barred  through delay caused by the House of 
Lords appeal, the Ministry of Defence has agreed to an extension to the period 
set out in the Limitation Act 1980 pending the outcome of the appeal.     

3.37 The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme, a new compensation package 
for members of the Armed Forces, became effective from 6 April 2005. The new 
legislation replaces the previous arrangements under the War Pensions Scheme 
and is administered and paid by the Veterans Agency. The new Scheme covers 
all Regular (including Gurkhas) and Reserve personnel whose injury, ill health or 
death is caused by their service on or after 6 April 2005.  Ex-members of the 
Armed Forces who served prior to this date, or who are receiving a current War 
Disablement Pension or War Widows’ Pension, are not affected by the new 
scheme. They will continue to receive their War Pension or War Widows’ pension 
and any associated benefits in the normal way since the new scheme affects 
only those who have suffered injury, ill health or death on or after 6 April 2005.  
3.38 The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme provides modern, fair and 
simple arrangements and will focus help on the more severely disabled. It will 
provide compensation for significant injuries, illness and death that are caused 
by service. It will also cover injury, illness or death that results from warlike 
incidents or terrorism. It is a 'no fault' scheme which means that individuals still 
have the option to sue the Ministry of Defence for negligence in common law.  
3.39   Under the terms of the Scheme a lump sum is payable to Service or ex-
Service personnel based on a 15-level tariff, graduated according to the 
seriousness of the condition. A graduated Guaranteed Income Payment (GIP), 
payable for life, will also be paid to those who could be expected to experience a 
significant loss of earning capacity. A GIP can also be paid to surviving partners 
(including unmarried and same sex partners) where the service person's death 
was caused by service.  

“The chapter of accidents is the longest chapter in the book” 
Lord Edward Thurlow – 1731-1806 
4.1     Since 1982, the Ministry of Defence has contracted out the handling of its 
civilian employee employer's liability claims.  From 1 May 2002 Royal and Sun 
Alliance plc has been handling all new civilian Employer's Liability claims on 
behalf of the Ministry of Defence under a 5-year contract. The contract was 
previously held by AXA Corporate Solution Services Ltd which continues to 
handle those claims first notified before 30 April 2002. The information below 
reflects the combined total from both companies.  
4.2     Ministry of Defence civilian employees injured in the course of their official 
duties may be able to claim compensation.  Details on how to submit a claim are 
contained in Volume 16, Section 7 of the Ministry of Defence Personnel Manual 
and further information is given in 2006DIN07-025 ‘Compensation Claims against 
MOD – Service and Civilian Employer’s Liability and Clinical Negligence’.  The increase 
in the number of claims received is mainly as a result of a large rise in asbestos- 
related claims. There was also a rise in accident injury related claims (trip/slip, 
lifting etc). Asbestos-related claims also account for the increase in the amount 
of compensation paid over the reporting period, which rose by £1,100,000 
compared to last year.  The increase in claims received and compensation paid 
against asbestos-related claims is a situation being experienced throughout the 
UK insurance industry. The most serious of these cases are those relating to 
mesothelioma. The Ministry of Defence receives about 50 such claims each year 
from former civilian industrial employees.  However, given that measures were 
introduced in the early 1970s regarding the use of asbestos, and that 
mesothelioma can take up to 40 years to manifest itself, these are expected to 
tail off in about ten years.  The average damages paid is about £80,000 
(inclusive of legal costs). 
Number of claims received 
Number of claims settled 
Amount paid  

Claims received
Claims settled

Amount paid


“Caution is not cowardly, carelessness is not courage” 
Since 1982 the Ministry of Defence has contracted out the handling of 
claims made against the Department by other road users.  The contract for the 
period 2002 to 2007 is held by AXA Corporate Solution Services Ltd.  DS&C 
works with the Defence Road Safety Officer to reduce the number of road traffic 
accidents experienced by the Department by raising awareness of the financial 
and human costs of accidents.  To this end DS&C participates in presentations at 
the Motor Transport Road Shows organised by the DLO and RAF.  DS&C is 
represented on the Defence Road Transport Regulation Working Group and the 
Defence Motor Transport Sub-Committee.  

Number of claims received 
Number of claims settled 
Amount paid  
Claims received
Claims settled

Amount paid
5.2   Claims arising from non-UK based vehicles overseas are handled by the 
appropriate Area Claims Officers (ACO), or DS&C(Claims) Public Liability Group 
(PLG), for that geographical area.  The Claims PLG geographical area is so big, 
it is not unusual to receive claims from anywhere in the world where British 
Forces are based, on exercise, or even when there is a single Defence Attaché 
with one car.  This year has seen claims from Gibraltar, Spain, Belize and Kenya.  
In accordance with JSP 341, units and organisations should send FMT 3-1 (the 
form submitted by the user unit notifying details of traffic accidents involving 
Ministry of Defence owned, or hired vehicles, and showing that the driver was on 
duty at the time of the incident) and supporting statements to DS&C(Claims).   

5.3     Claims managers are required to establish that an authorised driver was 
driving the Ministry of Defence vehicle on an authorised journey and route.  If 
these criteria are met and all the evidence suggests that the Ministry of Defence 
driver was liable for the accident, then compensation will be paid.  Statistics for 
motor claims for the last three years are shown in the table below.  After a 
significant drop in the number of claims received in FY 2004/05 the numbers 
appear to have now stabilised. 
Number of claims received 
Number of claims settled 
Amount paid  
Claims received
Claims settled
Amount paid
5.4   AXA Corporate Solution Services Ltd recovers, on behalf of the Ministry of 
Defence, the cost of damage caused to its vehicles in accidents which are the 
fault of a third party.  The number of recoveries and amounts received are shown 
Number of recoveries 
Amount Recovered  
Number of recoveries
Amount recovered

5.5   Claims PLG does not pay for damage to Ministry of Defence owned or hired 
vehicles involved in road traffic accidents in the UK, since this is the 
responsibility of the hiring units involved.   


“It costs more to revenge injuries than to bear them” 
Bishop T Wilson 
6.1    Clinical negligence claims arise when a patient considers that the advice 
and/or treatment received fell below acceptable standards due to the negligence 
of the medical staff.  To succeed in bringing a claim for negligence the claimant 
must establish that the defendant owed them a duty of care and that there was a 
negligent breach of that duty resulting in the claimant suffering damage. Due to 
their nature, clinical negligence claims can be very time consuming and 
expensive to settle.  In many cases, experts in a number of different fields may 
be instructed by both parties to provide advice on liability, causation and 
quantum issues.       
6.2     A number of factors underpin the rising costs of settling such claims 
including increases to the level of general damages, changes to the discount rate 
on which future losses are calculated, and higher labour rates for carers and 
6.3    The table below shows expenditure on clinical negligence claims over the 
past three years. There is a continued, welcome, downward trend on the number 
of new claims received. During financial year 2005/06 the most expensive case 
settled was for £1 million as a result of the negligent treatment of a soldier’s head 
injury, following a fall from a military vehicle, resulting in brain damage, At the 
other end of the spectrum the lowest claim settled was for £500 as a result of 
negligent treatment of a wart on a soldier’s hand.         

2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 
Number of claims 
92 86 69 
Number of claims 
42 25 28 
Amount Paid  
Claims received
Claims settled
Amount paid

6.4   In addition to the formal claims received, DS&C(Claims) dealt with 75 
requests from solicitors for disclosure of medical and other information in 
anticipation of potential clinical negligence claims against the Department.     
6.5    Staff from DS&C have, during the course of the year, been in discussion 
with Defence Medical Services staff with regard to the roll-out later this year of 
the Defence Management Information Capability Programme (DMICP) which, it 
is suggested, should, with the improved diagnostic aids available with DMICP, 
result in fewer instances of misdiagnosis/sub-optimal treatment, thus leading to a 
reduction of clinical negligence claims and compensation/legal costs paid.   The 
extent to which these suggested benefits do actually materialise will need to be 
monitored over the coming years.   As DMICP is not scheduled to be fully rolled 
out across the Ministry of Defence until 2010, it is not possible to attribute any 
immediate benefits relating to claims received/compensation paid.    

“There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action” 
Johann Von Goethe – 1749-1832 
7.1   As highlighted in previous Claims Annual Reports, the claims budget 
relating to Employment Tribunal applications, brought by current and former 
members of HM Armed Forces, was disaggregated to the respective single 
Service Personnel branches with effect from 1 April 2003.  
7.2   Any further enquiries relating to these cases, or Service Employment 
Tribunal cases in general, should therefore now be directed towards the 
respective single Service branches,  NP(Sec)Law 2 -  RN;  APC ( Litigation) -  
Army;  AMP(Sec) ET -  RAF.      
7.3   The Department is attempting to reach amicable settlements in respect of 
claims for compensation brought in the Employment Tribunal, and/or European 
Court of Human Rights, by former members of HM Armed Forces.   It has been 
accepted that they were dismissed from the Services as a result of the previously 
operated policy, which debarred homosexuals from serving in HM Armed Forces 
and they have also submitted their claims within stipulated timescales.       
7.4   Whilst the Department maintains that that nothing unlawful was done under 
domestic law, in terms of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, or under European 
law, in terms of the Equal Treatment Directive, it does accept that in some cases 
there had been a violation of those individuals’ right to respect for their private 
life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  In those 
cases it is accepted that compensation should be paid. During financial year 
2005/06 three such claims were settled and £52,000 compensation paid. The 
table below shows equivalent expenditure in the past three years:   
2003/2004 2004/2005   2005/2006
Homosexual Dismissal Cases Settled 


Other ETs 
- - 
Compensation Paid  

7.5   DS&C(Claims) is in liaison with the solicitors acting for the remaining 
claimants and have asked them to provide detailed schedules of loss for our 
further consideration.  Once all the necessary information has been received and 
considered, it is aimed to make appropriate offers of settlement to bring this 
tranche of claims to a satisfactory conclusion.          
7.6    Attempts to reach settlement on these cases were delayed considerably by 
the case of MacDonald -v- Ministry of Defence. Mr MacDonald was a serving 
Flight Lieutenant, whose resignation from the RAF was compulsorily effected in 
1997 because of his voluntary declaration of homosexuality.  He lost a claim at a 
full ET hearing that he had been discriminated against unlawfully on grounds of 
sex, contrary to the Equal Treatment Directive and Section 6 of the Sex 
Discrimination Act 1975. Following the ET ruling Mr MacDonald took his case to 
the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) which found that he had been 
discriminated against in terms of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and had been 
subjected to sexual harassment. He would be entitled to compensation in both 
respects and the matter was remitted back to the ET to consider compensation. 
7.7    The judgment of the EAT was radical in that it overturned the previously 
accepted interpretation of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.  The EAT found that 
the word “sex” should be interpreted to include not just gender but also sexual 
orientation. It was decided that this judgment should be challenged and the 
appeal was heard before the Inner Court of the Court of Session in Scotland in 
January 2002.   The Inner Court ruled in favour of the Ministry of Defence and 
ordered that the decision of the Employment Tribunal be restored.   
7.8     Mr MacDonald subsequently decided to appeal this decision to the House 
of Lords.  The Law Lords considered the appeal on 22 and 23 January 2003 and 
handed down a unanimous judgment on 19 June 2003 in favour of the Ministry of 
Defence. The Department’s attempts to reach amicable settlement with Mr 
MacDonald, including both substantial financial compensation and re-
instatement into the RAF, have unfortunately not been successful and Mr 
MacDonald has now taken steps to have this matter considered, and 
determined, by the ECHR.  The MOD accepts that, regrettably, this may now be 
the only way to finally resolve this matter.  

“I prefer the folly of enthusiasm to the indifference of wisdom” 
Anatole France – 1844-1924 
8.1   ACO(NWE) is part of the Civil Secretariat, Headquarters United Kingdom 
Support Command (Germany) located at Rheindahlen, Germany.  It is 
responsible for handling claims by and against the Ministry of Defence in Austria, 
Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, 
Norway, Poland, The Netherlands and Switzerland.  The ACO has eight civilian 
staff handling and processing claims. 
8.2   Following a review undertaken last year by the ACO, a new ACO(NWE) 
structure has now been fully implemented. The ACO staffing complement has 
been reduced and all claims officers have been cross trained and are now able 
to handle every type of claim received.  This has ensured continuity through 
periods of absence, better skilled claims officers and has also enabled a better 
focus on Loss of Service (LOS) recovery claims which are permissible under 
German law.    
8.3    ACO(NWE) continues to place a strong emphasis on Risk Management 
and has been active throughout the last year in raising the profile of the 
organisation, roles and responsibilities.  This has been achieved through a 
variety of mediums such as the ACO(NWE) Newsletter (issued in both English 
and German),  presentations at Garrison SHEF seminars and Property 
Management staff seminars, together with visits to stakeholders such as RMP 
detachments and the German Government Claims organisation (SRB).  The 
benefits seen from this work are an increased understanding of claims issues 
and willingness to provide assistance to claims investigations when required. 
2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 
Number of claims received 
Number of claims closed 
Total Paid 
£1,121,382 £1,094,802
Total Recovered 


Claims received
Claims settled
Amount paid
8.4   The ACO Balkans comprises three members of staff, a SO2 Commercial 
and one locally employed claims clerk, who are based in Banja Luka Metal 
Factory.   There is also a locally employed claims clerk based in Kosovo. 
8.5   There was a marked decline in the number of claims submitted this year, 
some 59% down on 2004/05, the vast majority of which where Road Traffic 
Accidents and property damage, including damage to beehives caused by 
2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 
Number of Claims Received 
   97              60 
Number of Claims Settled 
Amount Paid  
£508,703  £129,546  £118,273 
Amount recovered  
Claims received
Claims settled
Amount paid
8.6   The highest settlement of £39,000 involved a negligent discharge from a 
weapon being confiscated by HM Forces, when an interpreter sustained a leg 

8.7   ACO Cyprus comprises two members of staff who are responsible for 
processing claims by and against the Ministry of Defence and the Sovereign 
Base Areas administration in Cyprus and its territorial waters.  The range of 
claims dealt with is similar to that of ACO NW Europe (road traffic accident, 
public and employer’s liability, and training and manoeuvre damage), but the 
Cyprus Treaty of Establishment (ToE) rather than the NATO Status of Forces 
Agreement applies. 
8.8   The Cypriot climate and terrain provide excellent training opportunities for 
the British forces, both in the air and on the ground.  Most of this takes place on 
private land under rights granted by the ToE.  Consequently a good deal of the 
ACO’s work involves settling training and manoeuvre damage claims arising from 
the activities of our forces, whether involving the resident battalions and 
squadrons or those visiting from UK.  These claims are predominantly for loss of 
livestock (which will sustain injury and abortion if panicked by helicopters, 
pyrotechnics, etc.) and crop damage.  In providing a rapid response to the claims 
and complaints raised by farmers and landowners, ACO plays a significant role 
in maintaining good relations between the Ministry of Defence and the local 
community, a vital ingredient in supporting UK’s training rights.  The ACO seeks 
to reduce the risk of damage being caused and to that end routinely briefs all 
exercise reconnaissance officers prior to training taking place. 
8.9   The rise in training and manoeuvre damage claims during 2003/04 was due 
to the receipt of 179 individual claims from householders who reside in a village 
adjacent to RAF Akrotiri.  They alleged that their property had been damaged by 
vibration from military aircraft.  These claims were repudiated in 2005/06 
following noise surveys and specialist advice. If these are taken out of the 
equation, claims in respect of training and manoeuvre damage actually fell 
during 2003/04 and 2004/05. This was largely due to the cancellation of a 
number of exercises due to operational commitments elsewhere. The trend has 
reversed in 2005/06 as Units fulfil their training commitments with the number of 
claims reflecting this increased activity. 
8.10  Expenditure during 2005/06 in settling employer’s and public liability claims 
has increased despite a fall in the number received. This was due to the number 
of larger value claims settled from previous years. 
Number of claims received 
Number of claims closed 
Amount paid  
Amount Recovered 

Claims received
Claims closed
Amount paid
8.11   Based at Basrah Air Station alongside HQ Multi National Division (South 
East), ACO Iraq has experienced another busy year of operation. The ACO is 
manned by one x Band C2 and one x Band D Claims Officers and two locally 
employed Iraqi interpreters who manage all routine third party compensation 
claims made as a result of the British Forces’ activities on Op TELIC.  
8.12   The ACO comprises two adjoined portacabin units which have benefitted 
this year with improved communications to allow easier and faster electronic 
contact with the many agencies they deal with in the investigation of claims. The 
claims officers also work several times a week at the main gate of Basrah 
International Airport, three miles from the claims office, where they meet 
claimants in person to register new claims, update claimants on the progress of 
their claims and make settlement payments where appropriate.  
8.13   Claims are only registered and investigated for incidents occurring since 
the declared end of war fighting on 1 May 2003, except for a small number of 
claims for loss of property from Prisoners of War captured during the war fighting 
phase. Due to the sensitive nature of death-related claims, and to ensure a 
consistent approach in handling such claims alongside those Iraqi claims 
registered in the UK Court system, all claims involving the death or serious injury 
of an Iraqi civilian (except those resulting from RTAs) are handled by 
DS&C(Claims) staff in London. For the purpose of this exercise a ‘serious injury’ 
is defined as those injuries arising from an incident where another individual was 
8.14    All claims received by the ACO are investigated on the basis of whether  
British Forces have a legal liability to pay compensation. Where there is a proven 
legal liability i.e. the actions of British Forces were negligent and, as a result, a 
third party has suffered injury to themselves or a family member or damage to 
their private property, compensation is paid. Rates of settlement are assessed by 
the ACO using local Iraqi quantum values.  
8.15   Claims activity has continued to be high over the past year. The number of 
claims received is slightly lower than previous years but the number of cases 
being concluded has risen as some long term investigations have been finalized. 
The increase in settlements is, in part, due to the operation of a goodwill 

payment scheme for individuals who have suffered damage during an armed 
engagement between the British Forces and insurgent forces. Payment for such 
‘collateral damage’ is assessed on the balance of probabilities and settled up to 
a maximum of 50% of the sum assessed by the ACO. 
8.16  The types of claims received continue to be varied, ranging from fatal 
shootings, shooting injuries, property damage from search operations and RTAs, 
through to damage to fishing boats due to the firing of illumination mortars. 
Claims’ trends for financial year 2005/06 indicate that 79% of claims received 
have been for property damage whilst the remaining 21% have been for personal 
injury. This compares with a three-year trend of 75% property damage and 25% 
personal injury.  
8.17    Claims resulting from RTAs have reduced this financial year due, in some 
part, to the decrease in the number of vehicle movements. However, as Warrior 
tracked vehicles are being used more frequently the damage seen to civilian 
vehicles can be extensive.   
8.18   The ACO made two recovery claims for damage to British Forces vehicles. 
Number of claims received 
Number of claims settled 
Number of claims closed 
Amount paid 
Amount recovered 


Claims received
Claims settled
Amount paid
8.19   The ACO is based at HQ Northern Ireland and deals with common law 
claims for and against the Ministry of Defence in Northern Ireland.  It also acts as 
a focal point for civilian employee claims. 

8.20   The majority of claims handled by the office are as a result of low flying 
helicopter incidents. There has been an increase in helicopter activity as the 
Army continue to deploy Chinooks in support of the operations to demolish hilltop 
sites in South Armagh. It was anticipated that this might result in an increased 
level of claims but, fortunately, this did not materialise. 
8.21   Most property/livestock claims submitted as a result of helicopter damage 
are settled for under £2500.  However, bloodstock or pedigree cattle claims can 
have a high value. The highest value claim settled this year was £126,565 for the 
loss of pedigree cattle.  Of the next ten highest value claims, five were for 
bloodstock, four were for personal injuries and one was for damage caused to a 
crane.  The crane, which had been hired by Army personnel, overturned when it 
was attempting to lift a heavy load.  This claim was settled for £40,000.  The 
highest value personal injury claim settled was £65,000, which was for a 
passenger who was injured in a Puma helicopter that crashed in South Armagh 
in 2002. 

Number of claims received 
Number of claims settled 
Amount paid 
Amount recovered 
Claims received
Claims settled
Amount paid
8.22   All compensation claims in Afghanistan are handled by the ACO in Kabul.   
However, following the increased force levels in the theatre with the opening of 
new British Camps in Helmand Province, the ACO will now be travelling around 
the country processing claims as they arise.   Already there has been an 
increase in incidents and, from what was a part-time job along with other Civil 
Secretariat duties, the post is now becoming a 100% dedicated claims officer 
8.23   During financial year 2005/06, a total of 20 claims were received of which 
fifteen were settled. One fatality claim was made following an incident allegedly 
involving British Forces. However, following investigation, it was decided that 

there were no grounds for a compensation payment being made because British 
Forces did not commit any negligent act and neither were the Rules of 
Engagement breached. The remaining claims were as a result of road traffic 
accidents.   The full details of the claims are detailed below: 
Number of claims received 

Number of claims settled 

Amount paid 
Claims received
Claims settled
Amount paid
8.24   The ACO in the Falkland Islands has authority to handle common law 
property damage claims up to a value of £5,000 per claim, through the 
Command Secretariat British Forces South Atlantic Islands. 
8.25    During financial year 2005/06, eleven claims were received for damage to 
vehicles and three were settled from 2004/05. The geographical peculiarities of 
life in the South Atlantic Islands mean that the repairs to damaged vehicles can 
take a considerable time when parts have to be ordered from UK, and delivered 
by ship.   Also, due to the nature and terrain of the Falkland Islands, the local 
population generally accepts that the odd knock and ‘fender bender’ is a fact of 
8.26   There was also one recovery made during the year. 

Number of claims received 

Number of claims settled 

Amount paid 
Amount Recovered 
£ 836 

Claims received
Claims settled
Amount paid

“Take calculated risks.   That is quite different from being rash”. 
General George S Patton – 1885-1945 
9.1    The Risk Team’s role includes gathering information from a wide variety of 
sources covering accidents and incidents, claims, audits, inquiries and 
investigations, as well as the experiences of others, to enable the Ministry of 
Defence to identify, learn and share the lessons.  We are also actively managing 
improvements in the systems used to gather the information. 
9.2   We are responsible for the Incident Recording and Information System 
Project (IRIS) that will replace CHASP and RAPID, the Ministry of Defence’s 
ageing accident and incident recording database, and the claims handling 
database. The IRIS project successfully passed Initial Gate in Spring 2005, and 
we signed a Service Level Agreement with the Ministry of Defence’s Corporate 
Business Applications Integrated Project Team (DCBA) giving them responsibility 
for project managing delivery of the technology that will make up the Information 
System element of IRIS.  Following some 50 expressions of interest resulting 
from the Ministry of Defence’s advertisement in the Official Journal of the 
European Union (OJEU) in September 2005, six consortia have been selected 
for the invitation to tender stage. 
9.2   IRIS is aiming for full implementation by early 2008, with an interim 
capability during 2007 to enable data migration from legacy systems.  IRIS will 
significantly enhance the Department’s ability to record, learn and share 
knowledge, not just data, and will enable claims handling to be directly linked to 
the causal event record and follow-up investigation.  A crucial benefit will be the 
ability to gather meaningful data on hidden or indirect costs of accidents and 
incidents.  The direct costs, which include the cost of compensation and legal 
costs, are easy to identify, but the indirect costs such as equipment losses, 
recovery and repair, retraining and medical treatment are often less clear, but no 
less a threat to defence capability. 
9.4    Financial liability for any compensation claim is currently held centrally, 
rather than being charged to individual TLBs creating the risks. In the last quarter 
of 2005, a limited pilot study was conducted to test whether the systems and 
processes required to implement captive insurance arrangements were in place. 
Captive insurance is essentially a mechanism to create a set of financial 
incentives to reduce risk and for devolving funding so that each TLB pays a 
premium, based on claims historical data, into a compensation pool from which 
claims are paid. Premiums would be adjusted up or down to reflect the number of 
incidents giving rise to claims in individual TLBs. Improved risk management and 
health & safety standards leading to fewer accidents would result in lower 
premiums. The study concluded that many of the benefits of captive insurance 

link to page 44 found in a commercial environment had already been implemented within the 
Department and that little additional benefit would be obtained by introducing 
captive insurance.   
9.5    Learning lessons from the risk management work is of no value if it is not 
effectively shared. A number of papers have been produced and DS&C now 
produces a single newsletter ‘Simply, Safety and Environment’, to cover the 
breadth of environment, health and safety and claims issues.  The newsletter is 
widely circulated in the Ministry of Defence on paper, by e-mail and on the 
Ministry of Defence Intranet 1.  Work is also progressing on an intranet site 
covering environment, health and safety best practice, as well as one to cover 
worst practice: we intend to share Crown notices issued against the Ministry of 
9.6     Learning is not achieved just by gathering data, or simply by looking at 
what others do.  We are therefore developing benchmarking to enable 
performance comparisons to be made internally and, in the longer term 
externally, as well as developing our ability to measure attitude amongst Service 
and civilian personnel.  Both tools will enable some evidence-based assessment 
of the Department’s management of risk, and will help the Ministry of Defence to 
ensure that its safety management systems are maintaining effective risk 
awareness and control, not generating risk aversion and thereby a threat to 
defence capability.  

“Security is mostly a superstition.   It does not exist in nature, nor do the children 
of men as a whole experience it.   Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run 
than outright exposure.   Life is either a daring adventure or nothing”. 
Helen Keller – 1880-1968 
10.1  Treasury guidelines generally discourage public bodies from insuring risks 
unless it can be shown that the potential costs of claims paid, together with the 
cost of handling such claims, will exceed the cost of purchasing insurance.  As 
the costs of premiums, compared to the amounts paid in compensation, would 
normally favour insurance companies, the Ministry of Defence self-insures its 
core activities. 
10.2  DS&C(Claims) takes the policy lead on all Ministry of Defence non-
contractual insurance issues and encourages units and establishments to 
transfer risks arising from non-core activities away from the Department. 
10.3  Willis (Aerospace) provides insurance, which is self-financing, for four 
specific non-core aviation risks: 
•  Military aircraft attendance at air displays 
•  Civil use of military airfields 
•  Search and Rescue training with civilian organisations 
•  Fare-paying passengers on military aircraft 
10.4  DS&C(Claims) is responsible for all non-contractual indemnity matters, 
ranging from issuing indemnities to land owners who are letting the Armed 
Forces use their land for exercises, to commenting on different clauses within 
Defence Estates’ licenses, indemnity provisions within Memoranda of 
Understanding (MOUs) and other international agreements. 
10.5  The Ministry of Defence always seeks an indemnity against claims arising 
from activities or events that do not further the interests of the Department. 
Examples include participation by Service personnel or Ministry of Defence 
civilian staff in non-core fund raising or social activities, work experience for 

students over the age of sixteen, or the use of Ministry of Defence personnel or 
equipment by other organisations for activities which have no direct benefit to the 
Ministry of Defence. The Ministry of Defence must seek an indemnity in such 
instances as there is no provision in the Defence Estimates to meet claims which 
are not defence related. Indemnities must be backed by insurance or a 
guarantee from those companies/organisations that self-insure. The only 
exception to the requirement for indemnity is when the Ministry of Defence is 
dealing with other Government Departments.  This is because of the principle of 
indivisibility of the Crown. DS&C(Claims) issued around 30 indemnities in 
2005/2006. This figure is substantially down on previous years as the main users 
of Ministry of Defence property such as media organisations or charities are 
increasingly being treated as ‘Wider Markets’ activities.  DS&C(Claims) also 
issued nearly 400 indemnities for the use of other organisations' property, 
equipment or personnel for the Ministry of Defence’s benefit.  The majority of 
these were for training exercises but also included the Ministry of Defence’s 
participation in commemorations for Trafalgar 200 and the 60th Anniversary of 
the end of World War II.  DS&C(Claims) also commented on 208 Memoranda of 
Understanding during the year. 
10.6  Indemnities that arise from the Department’s contractual business are the 
responsibility of the appropriate Commercial Branch, with policy guidance 
provided by the Defence Procurement Agency (Central Services Group, Risk). 
10.7  Income-generating activity under the Government’s initiative for ‘Selling 
Government Services into Wider Markets’ is also an exception to the rule that the 
Ministry of Defence does not purchase insurance.  However, because of the 
unusual and hazardous nature of the activities the Ministry of Defence 
undertakes, commercial insurance may not always be available to cover these 
activities, or may not be cost effective.  Instead customers may pay a 
Departmental Insurance Charge and any claims for compensation which may 
arise will then be paid by DS&C(Claims). 
10.8  Advice about insurance and risk reduction may be obtained from 
DS&C(Claims)  and from the Ministry of Defence’s insurance brokers, Willis Ltd, 
in accordance with 2005DIN09-027.   Willis has created a specialised package of 
insurance policies offering a full range of business insurances for Budget Holders 
undertaking income-generating activity. 

“In skating over thin ice our safety is in our speed” 
Ralph Waldo Emerson – 1803-1882 
11.1   In this case, which received coverage in the national press at the end of 
last year, the claimant, the widow of a former civilian dockyard worker, claimed 
damages against the Ministry of Defence following the death in 2002 of her 63 
year old husband from lung cancer.    
11.2   The deceased, Mr B, employed by the Ministry of Defence between 1954 
and 1987, had smoked most of his adult life and before, and at the time of his 
death suffered from heart disease and emphysema.  His widow alleged that 
during the course of his work with the Ministry of Defence he had been exposed 
to, and had inhaled, asbestos dust and fibres.  As a consequence he developed 
asbestosis and lung cancer which ultimately proved fatal. 
11.3   The Ministry of Defence admitted primary liability for the claim in 2003, but 
disputed causation.  It was the Ministry of Defence’s case that since the lung 
cancer had been caused by exposure to asbestos and smoking, the level of 
damage should be reduced to reflect contributory negligence.  The Ministry of 
Defence argued that Mr B had smoked when he knew, or ought to have known, 
that by continuing to smoke he risked harming his health. 
11.4   In a ground breaking decision at the end of last year, a High Court judge 
ruled in favour of the Ministry of Defence on the issue of contributory negligence.  
Mr Justice Burnton said that no one could blame Mr B for starting to smoke in 
1955 because at the time the risks were not widely known.  However, he said 
that since 1971, when the first health warnings were put on cigarette packets, it 
was reasonably foreseeable for Mr B to have known that if he continued to 
smoke he risked damaging his health.   
11.5  In determining the percentage reduction in the claim on account of 
contributory negligence, the judge apportioned the greater share of the blame on 
the Ministry of Defence, who had admitted breach of duty owed to Mr B when the 
dangers of asbestos were known.  The judge concluded that while Mr B’s widow 
was entitled to compensation for her husband’s death, the award should be 
reduced by 20%. 
11.6    Following the trial, lawyers including the judge, said that the ruling was the 
first in the High Court to consider the contributory effect of tobacco in negligence 
claims.  Some lawyers gave warning that the decision could also hit 

compensation claims for ill-health made by other groups, such as heavy drinkers 
and obese people. 
11.7    A senior NCO in the Territorial Army, travelling in a military vehicle back to 
his unit at night in October 2001 fell from the vehicle, sustaining a significant 
head injury.  He was put to bed by colleagues who did not raise the alarm that he 
was unconscious.   It was not until some hours later that the severity of his injury 
was recognised and he was immediately transferred to hospital.   He was 
eventually diagnosed with a significant brain injury and now suffers severe 
cognitive and neuro-behavioural sequelae.   As a result he is now disabled and 
has been unable to return to his previous employment. He will require a 
significant degree of care for the rest of his life.  
11.8   The claim submitted related to the alleged unsuitability of the vehicle in 
which he was travelling and also the negligent medical treatment he was 
afforded after the accident. Liability was conceded on both parts, on legal advice, 
and an amicable agreed settlement of £1 million was reached in October 2005.  
11.9   The claimant, while on exercise in Belize, was participating in a patrol 
through the jungle in a line behind his colleagues.  The troop had stumbled upon 
a bees’ nest and were attacked.  As a result of the ensuing panic the claimant 
was knocked 20 or 30 feet down a ledge.  He sustained a quite serious 
dislocation to his shoulder and a minor wedge fracture to a vertebra. 
11.10  In his subsequent compensation claim he alleged that the route through 
the jungle had not been used before and therefore the directing staff should have 
sent someone ahead to check it for safety.  He also alleged that he was forced to 
walk back to camp before being evacuated out of the jungle and this had an 
effect on the seriousness of the injury.  He suggested that he should have been 
evacuated at the same time as his colleagues that had been stung. As a 
consequence of the incident the claimant’s shoulder was prone to dislocate for 
no reason.  This resulted in his medical discharge from the Army. He claimed in 
excess of £450,000. 
11.11   After thorough investigation into the allegations, evidence was obtained 
which showed that the route had been walked by the senior jungle warfare officer 
together with his 2iC prior to the exercise and that nothing untoward had been 
found.  The Ministry of Defence argued that the nature of the Belize jungle is 
such that there is no way such a nest could have been spotted as, due to their 
nature, they are not visible until they have been disturbed. 
11.12   In relation to the severity of the injury DS&C(Claims) was able to show 
that the two and a half hour walk back to camp did nothing to cause the injury to 
worsen and that there was no need for the claimant to be air lifted out of the 
jungle.  The men who were air lifted out were suffering anaphylactic shock and 
their lives were in danger.  The claimant was in no such position. 

11.13   In late December 2005, the claimant offered to settle the claim on a 50/50 
basis to ‘reflect the litigation risk to both parties’.  This was rejected and the 
claimant was told that the Ministry of Defence would run the matter to trial for a 
ruling on liability. On 27 January 2006 the Ministry of Defence received a Notice 
of Discontinuance from the claimant. 
11.14   The claimant, who was a technical storeman, took it upon himself to fix a 
wooden notice board that had broken as it was removed from a wall.  The 
claimant said that he intended to cut four pieces of metal to shore-up the corners 
of the frame, using a circular saw located in the metalsmith’s workshop. The 
claimant told the court that because of fumes created by painting that had 
recently been carried out in the workshop, he suddenly felt dizzy whilst using the 
saw and had to put his hand out to steady himself.  He placed his hand in line 
with the blade of the saw and four fingers were amputated. The claimant’s initial 
allegations were twofold: the first was that the Ministry of Defence was negligent 
in allowing him to work in an area that was affected by paint fumes; and the 
second was that the machinery was defective. 
11.15  An engineer for each party visited the workshop where the accident 
occurred to view the circular saw. The Ministry of Defence also instructed a 
chemist to report on the likelihood of paint fumes affecting the claimant’s senses. 
The chemist’s report and both engineers’ reports stated that they could see 
nothing that would have caused the accident.  After receiving these reports the 
claimant amended his claim to abandon the defective machinery allegations and 
adopted an allegation that he had been trained, but not properly, in the use of the 
circular saw, and that the Ministry of Defence had not done enough to ensure 
that unauthorised users could not gain access to the machine. 
11.16   Following a two-day trial, the court found that the Ministry of Defence had 
not done enough to ensure that unauthorised and incompetent users did not 
have access to the circular saw, and that the claimant believed that he had been 
trained in the use of the machine but, in reality, he had probably only been 
watching a metalsmith using the machine at some point in the past.   The court 
found, however, that using the machine was neither part of the claimant’s job nor 
was it expected that he would use the machine.  In light of this it was clear to the 
court that it was unforeseeable that the claimant would then use the machine 
and suffer the injuries as a result.  Judgment was given in favour of the Ministry 
of Defence and an order for costs was made against the claimant. 

11.17   The claim arose out of a training accident at HMS RALEIGH, when the 
claimant injured his back jumping from an obstacle whilst carrying a spar on an 
obstacle course.  The claimant alleged that he was ordered to jump whilst 
carrying the spar, contrary to health and safety advice.  The claimant was 
medically discharged from the Royal Navy, and claimed that he had developed 
Fybromyalgia due to the injury and could not work again.  The potential value of 
the claim was initially approximately £500,000.  However, this figure was 
moderated after further medical evidence was obtained that did not support a 
diagnosis of Fybromyalgia.  The claimant maintained that he had chronic pain 
but reduced his claim at trial to approximately £200,000 on the basis that he 
would partly recover with appropriate medical treatment. 
11.18    Liability was disputed on the facts and upon the suitability of the obstacle 
course.  Expert evidence was obtained from an engineer on the suitability of the 
landing surface.  Causation was also disputed on the basis that there was no link 
between any injury that the claimant may have suffered in his fall and his 
subsequent disablement.  Video evidence was also obtained which cast doubt 
on the extent of the injury, as well as casting doubt upon the honesty of the 
claimant’s presentation of the injury.  In addition, medical evidence was obtained 
from an orthopaedic surgeon, a psychiatrist, and an expert in Fybromyalgia/pain 
disorders to assist the court with the complex issues of the cause of the 
claimant’s pain disorder. 
11.19    The claim was dismissed by the Judge who felt that the claimant could 
not be considered a reliable witness.  Video evidence obtained, not only cast 
doubt upon the level of disability claimed, but also assisted in casting doubt upon 
the credibility of the claimant’s evidence as to liability. 
11.20   The claimant, a seventeen year old Army recruit, suffered a serious injury 
to his right knee during training whilst jumping from a bridge into a river.   His 
patella was fractured and two years later it had to be removed.   He was left with 
variable pain in the joint and problems with kneeling, bending, prolonged 
standing and walking.   He was discharged as medically unfit from the Army, but 
was capable of full-time work, albeit handicapped, in the labour market.   The trial 
judge awarded him £40,000 for pain, suffering and loss of congenial employment 
and a further £30,000 for handicap on the labour market.   There were further 
awards for past loss of earnings and employment benefits, including pension, 
which totalled £62,000. 
11.21   The claimant’s first schedule of loss had claimed more than £1 million.   
The Ministry of Defence disputed much of the claim which resulted in the 
claimant’s final schedule of loss served about a year later at only £240,000.   The 
Ministry of Defence made a Part 36 payment into court of £150,000 and attended 
a pre-trial Joint Settlement Meeting, but no settlement was reached between the 

11.22   At the subsequent trial, although substantial parts of his claim had been 
abandoned, the claimant gave evidence about his disability which went beyond 
the agreed medical evidence.   In his costs ruling the judge said: 
‘He sought to paint a picture of significant residual disability, not only through the 
statements of case and manner in which the case was presented, but also, 
regrettably, when he gave evidence.   I formed the view when he gave his 
evidence that there was a significant degree of exaggeration’. 
11.23  The claimant only just beat the payment into court, which was much 
closer to the sum awarded than the amount claimed by the final schedule of loss.   
It was this, and the judge’s finding that the claimant had exaggerated his 
disability and advanced a claim which went far beyond that to which he was 
entitled, which persuaded the judge to make a reduction of 25% from the costs to 
which the claimant would otherwise have been entitled. 
11.24   The Ministry of Defence lodged an appeal which contended that it was 
the successful party and that the 25% reduction in costs did not reflect the fact 
that it had itself incurred costs in challenging a wholly exaggerated claim. The 
Court of Appeal emphasised, however, that the exercise of a judge’s discretion 
will not usually be overturned and upheld the judge’s ruling that a reduction of 
25% was reasonable where a claimant had exaggerated his claim.  The Court of 
Appeal found that the reduction must act as a considerable disincentive to 
claimants and their advisers in making exaggerated claims.     

“Man blames fate for other accidents but feels personally responsible for a hole-
Martha Beckman 
12.1  This part of the Annual Report deals with civil law and practice.  It includes 
a brief summary of the 1999 Civil Justice Reforms.  Although these reforms have 
been in place for some time now, we believe it is important to recapitulate the 
main aims and procedures, to serve both as a reminder for regular readers of 
these reports and as a simple digest for those unfamiliar with the subject. 
12.2  The greatest upheaval ever in the Civil Litigation process occurred when 
the New Civil Procedure Rules were introduced on 26 April 1999. The Rules, 
which replaced the existing High Court and County Court Rules, have 
significantly changed the way common law claims are handled, in an attempt to 
speed up, simplify and make the whole process less expensive. The Rules, 
which include pre-action protocols, govern the conduct of litigation and 
encourage the appointment of a single expert to provide an independent opinion. 
12.3  The overriding objective of the rules is to enable the court to deal with 
cases justly in ways which are proportionate to the amount of money involved, 
the importance and complexity of the case, and to the parties’ financial position.  
•  Litigation will be avoided wherever possible 
•  Litigation will be less adversarial and more co-operative 
•  Litigation will be less complex 
•  The timescale of litigation will be shorter and more certain 
•  Parties will be on a more equal footing 
•  There will be clear lines of judicial and administrative responsibility for the 
civil justice system 

•  The structure of the courts and the deployment of judges will be designed 
to meet the needs of litigants 
•  Judges will be employed effectively so that they can manage litigation in 
accordance with the new rules and protocols 
•  The civil courts system will be responsive to the needs of litigants   
12.4  In keeping with the reforms, the Courts have continued to take a pro-
active approach to case management, setting down directions which decide the 
order in which issues are to be resolved and fixing timetables to control the 
progress of the case. In addition, they encourage the parties to co-operate and 
consider adopting other methods of settlement such as alternative dispute 
12.5 Proportionality 
important part in the new system and the courts 
will consider whether the potential benefit of taking a particular step justifies the 
12.6  In the majority of cases a single expert will be instructed and evidence, 
assuming the case proceeds to court, will normally be in the form of a written 
report. The defendant and claimant may submit written questions to the expert 
and both sides will see the expert’s response. If the parties to an action cannot 
agree upon an expert witness they may instruct their own choice of expert but, if 
the court decided that either party has acted unreasonably, they will not be able 
to recover the costs of obtaining the expert report. 
12.7  Lord Woolf in his final ‘Access to Justice’ report of July 1996 
recommended the development of pre-action protocols ’to build on and increase 
the benefits of early but informed settlement that genuinely satisfy both parties to 
dispute’. The Lord Chancellor strengthened this message in the Foreword of the 
New Civil Procedures Rules when he stated ‘We must not forget, however, that 
we should see litigation as the last resort and not the first resort in the attempt to 
settle the dispute’.  
12.8  A number of pre-action protocols, including ones for personal injury cases 
and clinical negligence, have now been published. Eventually all types of 
litigation will be categorised and, if appropriate, pre-action protocols developed. 
12.9  The aims of the pre-action protocol are to promote more pre-action 
contact between the parties, better exchange of information, better pre-action 
investigation and thereby to put the parties in a position to settle cases fairly and 
early, reducing the need for litigation.    

12.10  If defendants are unable to comply with the pre-action protocols the courts 
will have the power to impose sanctions due to non-compliance when 
proceedings are commenced.  Sanctions will likely include a refusal to grant 
further extensions of time for serving a defence or evidence and costs penalties. 
12.11  Personal injury claims will be assigned to either a fast-track or multi-track. 
Fast-track cases will be limited to a value up to £15,000 (soon to rise to £25,000 
with an option for parties to extend jurisdiction by consent to £50,000) and will 
proceed to a hearing quickly. 
12.12 There will be an automatic timetable for compliance with the various 
stages of the litigation. The hearings are designed to be relatively short and in 
the majority of fast-track cases written evidence only from a single expert will be 
12.13 Multi-track cases currently will generally involve claims with a value in 
excess of £15,000 or which feature complex issues. Case management by the 
courts will play an important part in setting the timescales for certain stages of 
the case and defendants may possibly be required to attend a case conference 
before a judge, when decisions will be made as to the future conduct of the 
12.14  The personal injury pre-action protocol (primarily designed for cases with 
a value of less than £15,000) sets out the following stages: 
12.15  The letter of claim will contain a clear summary of the facts on which the 
claim is based, including allegations of negligence, and will include details of any 
injuries suffered or financial losses incurred.  
12.16  The defendant should acknowledge within 21 calendar days of the date of 
posting of the letter of claim in Personal Injury cases and fourteen calendar days 
in Clinical Negligence cases. 
12.17 The defendant will have a maximum of three months from the date of 
acknowledgement of the claim to investigate.  No later than at the end of that 
period the defendant must inform the claimant, or their legal representative, 
whether liability is admitted in full, is denied, or there is a partial admission.  If the 
defendant denies liability they should enclose with the letter of reply documents 
which are material to the issues between the parties, and which would be likely 
to be ordered to be disclosed by the court. If a defendant is unable to comply 

with the requirements of the pre-action protocol, the claimant will be able to issue 
proceedings at the end of the three-month period. 
12.18 If the defendant makes a proper denial of liability giving the detailed 
explanation and documents required under the protocol, many cases will 
proceed no further. In such cases it will be for the claimant to make a decision 
whether to proceed with the case. 
12.19 Defendants will no longer be able to delay making a decision as to 
whether to settle or fight and they will no longer be able to make a simple blanket 
denial of liability without giving reasons. 
12.20  There will be a strict timetable for dealing with the Defence. In the majority 
of cases the time limit will be 28 days after proceedings are served. One 
extension of time may be granted, although in circumstances where the 
defendant has failed to comply with the pre-action protocol, it is very unlikely that 
any extension will be given. 
12.21  The Defence must also fulfil new requirements under the rules. The new 
requirements are as follows: 
•  the Defence must state which facts are admitted; 
•  the Defence must state which facts are denied and provide supporting 
documentary evidence; 
•  the Defence must state the defendant’s own version of events; and  
•  the Defence must identify which facts the defendant is unable to admit or 
deny and which the claimant is required to prove. 
12.22 Under the new rules a statement of truth must verify the Defence.  The 
form of the statement is as follows: 
‘The defendant believes that the facts stated in this defence are true.’ 
12.23  The statement is not sworn, but must be signed by: 
•  a senior officer of the company, corporation or organisation; 
•  a partner in control of a business; or 
•  a legal representative. 

12.24  The person signing the statement of truth must identify his or her office or 
position in the organisation.  It follows that the person signing must have 
authority to sign on behalf of the organisation.  If a legal representative signs, he 
or she is deemed to have explained the consequences to the defendant and the 
penalties are the same as if the defendant had signed. 
12.25 A person who signs without honest belief in the truth of the Defence is 
guilty of contempt of court.  In an extreme case this could result in a fine or even 
a prison sentence for the person who approved the contents of the Defence and 
authorised its signature. 
12.26 It follows that in future solicitors will always ask the defendant either to 
sign the Defence or to approve the contents of the Defence before signing on the 
defendant’s behalf. 
12.27  If the Defence is not signed the court will strike it out and the defendant 
will lose his or her opportunity to defend the claim. 
12.28  Bearing in mind the tight time schedules, the Department will need to be in 
a position to deal with the Defence quickly. In the case of claims against the 
Ministry of Defence, the appropriate persons to sign the Statement of Truth or 
verify the Defence will be the Chief Claims Officer or a Senior Claims Officer. 
12.29  The new Civil Procedure Rules specify the type of documents which the 
defendant must disclose and set time limits for doing so. Many of these 
documents will have been disclosed under the pre-action protocol: i.e. within the 
initial three-month period for investigation. 
12.30  Under the new rule, standard documents to be disclosed include: 
•  all documents which could adversely affect the case;  
•  all documents which could adversely affect the other side’s case; and 
•  all documents which could support the other party’s case. 
12.31 A defendant is required to make a reasonable search for documents 
depending on: 
•  the significance of the document; 
•  the number of documents; 
•  the complexity of the case; and  
•  the ease and expense of retrieval. 

12.32 The list of documents which is sent to the other side will include a 
disclosure statement containing the following information: 
•  the identity of the person making the statement; 
•  the extent of the search that has been made to trace documents; 
•  why the person signing the statement is the appropriate person; 
•  confirmation that he or she understands the duty to disclose; and 
•  confirmation that that duty has been carried out to the best of his or her 
12.33 There will clearly be an onus on the defendant to make sure that the 
documents can be obtained quickly and that they are up-to-date. The person 
who signs the disclosure statement or who authorises the solicitor to sign it on 
the defendant’s behalf, must understand his or her duty and have the appropriate 
authority within the organisation. 
12.34  The implementation of the reforms involved a massive change in working 
practices. At the outset, and indeed some time before the changes took place, 
Claims officials undertook additional specialist training to ensure they would 
comply with the new rules.  Updating and refresher courses and workshops have 
been undertaken during the last year.  The acquisition of new and specialist skills 
has been recognised in the DS&C(Claims) Functional Competence Framework.    
12.35  Units and Establishments have also become far more aware of how the 
protocols and rules operate. Claims officials will continue to work closely with, 
and remind, Units and Establishments of their duties to co-operate in supplying 
information and assisting in defence of claims.  
12.36 Accidents must be reported promptly and accurately with improvements 
made to document handling and availability. 
12.37  Witnesses must be identified and made available for interview early in the 
claims process.  Similarly, defendants will need to be able to identify and find 
relevant documents. 
12.38 The courts will not be sympathetic to the Department arguing that there 
has been insufficient time to investigate a claim. Neither will the courts deem the 
Department to be a special case because of its size, widespread locations or the 
deployment of key witnesses overseas.  

12.39  It is well over 50 years since the Legal Aid and Advice Act was enacted. 
For the first time, it gave access to justice to a range of people who beforehand 
could not afford to bring a case in criminal or civil law. Eligibility for legal aid 
depended on the applicant’s disposable income and capital but anecdotal 
evidence is plentiful about how legal aid was wrongly or rightly distributed and it 
therefore came as no surprise that Legal Aid for Personal Injury claims was 
abolished in April 2000. The majority of such claims are now likely to be the 
subject of a conditional fee whereby a claimant’s solicitor can uplift his normal 
charging rate by 100% if successful (providing the success fee does not exceed 
more than 25% of the total compensation). 
12.40 Conditional fees can cause problems for Claims officials when trying to 
estimate the legal costs element of settling a claim. One method of overcoming 
this problem is to ask the claimant’s solicitor to clarify the basis of funding the 
costs together with an indication of the success fee agreed. However, as the 
rules stand, solicitors are not obliged to provide this information to the Defendant 
and to do so might give an indication of the strength of their client’s case. In 
many cases, therefore, the level of the success fee will not be known until after 
the case has settled. 
12.41  In these cases there will be a far greater opportunity to recover our legal 
costs because as part of the conditional fee arrangements a claimant will likely 
take out insurance to protect against the risk of losing the action and to provide 
an indemnity for the defendant’s legal costs.  It will therefore be our practice, and 
the practice of our commercial claims handlers, to pursue claimants with 
conditional fee arrangements for our costs, in the event that we are successful in 
the defence of the claim 
12.42 Alternative Dispute Resolution/mediation is considered in cases where 
there is some evidence to support a claim of negligence.  In cases where there is 
currently no evidence it is not deemed appropriate. 
12.43 In cases where liability is not an issue, counsel-to-counsel settlement 
conferences are an innovative and financially attractive way of settling cases 
without going to trial or settling at the courtroom door. A round table consultation 
is arranged with the Department represented by counsel, the Chief Claims 
Officer or Senior Claims Officer and Treasury Solicitor. This method of 
negotiated settlement has had a significant effect on the way claims are handled 
due to the claimant and defendant showing an element of goodwill combined 
with a realistic approach. This has demonstrated that it is possible to agree a 
settlement without recourse to the courts. An added benefit is that the claimant 

does not need to undergo the trauma of a court case to secure compensation for 
an injury or loss caused by the Department’s negligence. 
12.44 In 2005/06, nineteen such conferences were held and compensation 
totalling £13,735,000 was agreed against claims totalling £23,101,000.   Had 
these cases run to court, the legal costs payable by the Ministry of Defence 
would have been significantly higher.  
12.45  Mediation is a route strongly favoured by the Lord Chancellor as the way 
forward for civil justice in the UK, for cases where there is some evidence to 
support a claim. However in cases where there is currently no evidence to 
support a claim, mediation would not be appropriate. The Department is signed 
up to mediation as a method of Alternative Dispute Resolution, but as the Lord 
Chancellor’s Department’s Press Notice on the subject made clear, Alternative 
Dispute Resolution is not appropriate in every case. Judges are also now 
directing parties to an action to mediate the case rather than letting it proceed to 
12.46 The mediation process employs an independent person (the mediator) to 
facilitate negotiations between parties in a dispute in an effort to reach a mutually 
accepted resolution. The process is voluntary, flexible, confidential and non-
binding, and can be entered into and terminated at the discretion of either party.  
12.47  A number of claims made against the Ministry of Defence have been 
successfully concluded through the mediation process and this year £4,000,000 
was recovered from insurers by this process, in respect of a Ministry of Defence 
claim for  damage to one if its ships. 
12.48 The Chief Claims Officer and Senior Claims Officer (Claims) are 
accredited mediators.  
12.49  Where a person suffers an injury, partly as a result of his own fault and 
partly the fault of another person, any subsequent claim for damages he pursues 
may be reduced to reflect his contribution to the cause of the loss. This principle 
is governed by the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. 
12.50  The following are some examples of Contributory Negligence: 
•  Driver or pedestrian failing to keep a proper lookout;  
•  Claimant failing to turn off a machine before cleaning it; 
•  Failure of motorcyclist to wear a crash helmet; 
•  Failure to wear seat belt while travelling in a vehicle; 

•  Riding in a vehicle as a passenger with a driver who is known to be under 
the influence of alcohol or drugs.  
12.51 The claimant’s lack of care must be a contributory factor to his injury.   
However, some concession is made towards children and towards people 
suffering from some infirmity or disability who are unable to be held responsible 
for their own actions.  
12.52  Rehabilitation, as a method of assisting injured or ill people back to work, 
is a matter that is attracting an increasing level of support amongst various 
bodies in Government, the Judiciary and the legal profession. It is claimed that at 
present the UK’s track record in getting injured or ill people back to work falls well 
behind that of other Western countries.  By way of supporting this, it is claimed 
by the London International Insurance and Reinsurance Market Association 
(LIRMA), in a study entitled UK Bodily Injury, that the prospects of a paraplegic 
returning to full time employment is at least 50% in Scandinavian countries, 
compared to about 14% in the UK. 
12.53 DS&C(Claims) aims to utilise rehabilitation where appropriate when 
compensation claims are made. To this end, Royal and Sun Alliance, our 
commercial claims handlers with responsibility for Employer’s Liability claims, 
have offered rehabilitation in some cases, although to date the uptake has been 
disappointing.  However, rehabilitation is expected to assume far greater 
prominence in the claims handling process with the revision of the Civil 
Procedure Rules pre-action protocol on the handling of Personal Injury claims.  
12.54 Although the Ministry of Defence self-insures its core risks, and 
compensation payments are made directly from the Defence budget, the risks 
posed by fraudulent claimants are as real for the Ministry as they are for the 
insurance industry. Claims staff are therefore alert to the possibility of fraud, or 
grossly exaggerated claims, and, as part of the process of determining liability for 
the claim, critically assesses the information provided by claimants.   
12.55 Surveillance might be undertaken to observe the true extent of a 
claimant’s alleged injuries in cases where there is reasonable suspicion about 
the veracity of a claim. Claims that are found to be exaggerated are either 
repudiated or settled at a greatly reduced level of damages in line with the injury 
suffered and true level of loss incurred by the claimant.   
12.56 Cases where investigations suggest that claims are substantially 
exaggerated, fraudulent throughout, or relate to wholly contrived or fabricated 
incidents are, as a matter of course, passed to the Ministry of Defence Fraud 
Squad with a view to proceeding with a criminal prosecution.    

12.57  The traditional method of payment following settlement of a compensation 
claim has been by the payment of a single lump sum.  If prudently invested, this 
would provide a stream of income representing loss of future earnings and/or the 
need for continued care for the anticipated remainder of the claimant’s life.   
12.58  A periodic payment normally consists of a conventional lump sum to the 
claimant together with a regular payment made on a monthly, quarterly or annual 
basis.  The periodic payment can be made by way of an annuity purchased in 
the marketplace or, in the case of Government Departments and the National 
Health Litigation Service, on a self-funded basis. The Ministry of Defence has 
entered into 28 periodic payment arrangements in high value cases which, up to 
1 April 2005, needed the consent of both the defendant and the claimant.  
12.59  With the implementation of the Courts Act on 1 April 2005, the Courts now 
have the power to impose periodic payment settlements and must consider in 
every case, involving future pecuniary loss, whether periodical payments are a 
suitable means to pay all or part of the damages 
12.60  The changes have been introduced to ensure a guaranteed income 
stream for those facing long-term care needs and future loss of earnings. The 
Court will also have the power to make a variable order to alter the terms of the 
periodic payment in cases where the claimant suffers some serious deterioration 
or, indeed, significant improvement.  
Total number of periodic payments 
Total payments each year 
£790,000 £1,026,000 £1,243,000 
12.61  If Ministry of Defence civil servants or Service personnel are injured by a 
third party whilst on duty, it is the individual's own responsibility to pursue a claim 
for compensation without any assistance or involvement by the Department.  The 
only exception to this has been that civil servants injured in RTAs can have their 
legal costs underwritten by their TLB. This arrangement does not, however, 
apply to Service personnel or to civil servants injured in other circumstances.   
12.62  Although on the face of it the policy seems harsh, it is consistent with the 
approach adopted by many large private sector companies. The reason why the 
Ministry of Defence cannot support staff in such circumstances is that the 
Ministry of Defence, in common with all other Government departments, may 
only pay compensation, or become involved in pursuing claims, where it has a 
legal liability to do so.  Any other policy would involve the misuse of public funds 
and the making of subjective judgments which could give rise to inequitable 

treatment of claimants. Under common law the Ministry of Defence has no 
standing or vicarious liability in these cases and it does not have the authority to 
pay compensation to such claimants nor to fund the cost of legal action on their 
12.63  In order to relieve concerns expressed by Ministry of Defence staff (both 
Service and civilian), the Third Party Accident Scheme -ToPaS - was devised to 
provide ‘no expense’ legal assistance to staff in the UK.  Staff are able to contact 
the ToPaS solicitors direct and obtain immediate advice and assistance to 
pursue a claim on a conditional fee basis (also called ‘no win, no fee’).  The 
scheme is operated by Betesh Fox & Company, a firm of solicitors which 
specialises in personal injury claims.  Details are given in DCI Gen 50/05. 
12.64 ToPaS also offers a free advice and help line service for victims of 
accidents abroad. There are many occasions when, although the accident 
occurred abroad, a claim can still be made within the UK and appropriate 
compensation can be recovered.  On the other hand, Ministry of Defence 
personnel who suffer injury as a result of the negligence of a foreign national 
when abroad may need to obtain the services of a local lawyer and ToPaS can 
assist in locating a lawyer in such circumstances. 
12.65  Betesh Fox won a very important victory in court for an ex-Royal Marine 
who was almost killed in the 1989 Deal Bombings.  The Criminal Injury 
Compensation Board (CICB) awarded him £750,000 following the re-opening of 
his case.  Mr X originally submitted an application in 1990 for Criminal Injuries 
Compensation as he had suffered psychological trauma as a witness to the 
aftermath of the IRA’s bombing of the RM School of Music in Deal on 22 
September 1989. He was approximately 100 yards away from the scene of the 
bomb blast and was involved in providing immediate assistance at the scene, not 
only trying to rescue injured people, but trying to identify the bodies of those 
12.66    In 1992 he was awarded the sum of £17,500 by the CICB as a result of 
suffering from a severe psychiatric condition. However, his condition 
subsequently deteriorated and he was granted voluntary redundancy from HM 
12.67    His symptoms continued to deteriorate until the beginning of 1996 when 
he suffered a complete mental breakdown, later being diagnosed as suffering 
from severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Betesh Fox were 
subsequently instructed, and a request was made to what is now known as the 
Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to re-open the original application.  The 
case was re-opened and the award was considerably increased.  

12.68 If you would like more information about ToPaS or would like a 
presentation to be made, please contact: 
Carl Crawley 
ToPaS Development Director 
Tel: 0870 998 9999 


Responsible for Policy Group 
Indemnities & Insurance Adviser  
Band  D 
Assistant Adviser Indemnities & 
Band  E1 
Policy & Contracts Adviser  
Band  D 
Motor Transport Liabilities Adviser  
Band  D 
Focal Point Manager  
Band  E1 
2 Focal Point Administrators  
Band  E2 
Non-contractual insurance (principally non-core aviation risks), including liaison 
with Ministry of Defence’s insurance brokers, indemnities and the claims aspects 
of MOUs 
Policy relating to third party motor claims and liaison with AXA Corporate 
Solution Services Ltd. 
Claims co-ordination and Focal Point (i.e. Registry function). 
Liaison with contractors working for DS&C and the Ministry of Defence’s 
commercial branch on contractual issues. 

Responsible for Budget management and financial planning for DS&C 
Head of Business Finance 
Band  C1 
Finance Manager 
Band  D 
2 Finance Officers 
Band  E1 
Budget management and financial planning for DS&C(Claims)  
Responsible for Employer’s Liability Group, Public Liability Group and Clinical 
Negligence/Employment Tribunals Group 
Team Leader 
Band  C2 
2 Case Managers  
Band  D 
1 Assistant Case Manager  
Band  E1 
1 Group Administrator 
Band  E2 
Handling of Service personnel and ex-Service personnel Employer's Liability 
claims received before 1 July 1996 and managing the contract with Royal and 
Sun Alliance which has dealt with the majority of this type of claim since 1 July 
Managing the contracts with AXA which deals with claims of this type notified 
before 1 May 2002 and with Royal and Sun Alliance which deals with claims of 
this type notified on or after 1 May 2002. 

Claims from members of the Armed Forces barred by Section 10 of the Crown 
Proceedings Act 1947. 
Claims for compensation due to illness alleged to have been caused by 
exposure to radiation, including Nuclear Test Veterans. 
Miscellaneous claims from Service and ex-Service personnel including defective 
enlistment, false prosecution, unlawful detention. 
Claims relating to military low flying activity in England, Scotland and Wales. 
Maritime claims including accidents, salvage, collisions and damage to fishing 
Team Leader 
Band  C2 
3 Case Managers  
Band  D 
3 Assistant Case Managers  
Band  E1 
Public Liability claims, including Personal Injury, and property damage.  
Claims against visiting forces in the UK (under Section 9 of the Visiting Forces 
Act 1952 and Article VIII of the NATO Status of Forces Agreement). 
Politically sensitive claims from members of the public arising from the activities 
of the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland. These range from unlawful detention to 
Privately owned vehicle damage claims and road traffic accidents overseas in 
countries not covered by an ACO. 

Claims policy relating to overseas operations and advice to ACOs in 
Afghanistan, the Balkans, Cyprus, Iraq, NW Europe, the South Atlantic Islands 
and Northern Ireland. 
Responsible for ex-gratia payments, including the human volunteer research no-
fault compensation scheme. 
Responsible for criminal injuries compensation claims from Ministry of Defence 
Civil Servants’ dependants based overseas. 
Recovery of the Ministry of Defence’s uninsured financial losses, excluding those 
arising from traffic accidents in the UK. 
Team Leader 
Band  C2 
3 Case Managers  
Band  D 
1 Assistant Case Manager  
Band  E1 
1 Assistant Case Manager (part-time) 
Band  E1 
Claims for compensation where it is alleged that the Ministry of Defence has 
acted negligently.  
Co-ordination of the Ministry of Defence's response to claims put to Employment 
Tribunals and then the European Court of Human Rights by former Service 
personnel dismissed as a result of their homosexuality 
Potential claims for alleged Gulf War illnesses. 
Claims from Service and ex-Service personnel alleging failure of the Ministry of 
Defence to recognise, diagnose and treat their PTSD. 
Claims from Porton Down veterans 

Compensation payments and associated 
legal costs 
DS&C(Claims) Legal Costs 
Operating costs 
Receipts - 
TOTAL 73.3 
The figure for total in-year payments of £73.3million is not directly comparable 
with those shown in previous Claims Annual Reports because of changes to the 
Ministry of Defence’s accounting system and organisation. 

Death following Air Crash 
Clinical Negligence – Head Injury 
Aircraft Noise 
Public Liability  Personal Injury – Northern Ireland Shooting 
Personal Injury – Slip 
 Royal Navy 
Clinical Negligence – Fractured Ankle 
Clinical Negligence - Depression 
Personal  Injury - Asbestos 
Public Liability  Personal Injury - Asbestos 
Personal Injury – Asbestos 
*Inclusive of claimant’s costs 

Injured in fall 
Injured in road traffic accident 
Hand Injury 
Fatality due to negligent discharge 
Repetitive strain injury 
Cold weather injury  
Skiing Accident 
Injured in road traffic accident 
Cold weather injury 
Fatal gunshot wounds 
* Inclusive of claimant’s legal costs 


AND RSA 2005/06 

Asbestos related disease  
Slip/Trip £280K 
 Asbestos related disease 
 Asbestos related disease  
 Asbestos related disease 
 Asbestos related disease 
 Asbestos related disease 
 Asbestos related disease 
 Asbestos related disease 
 Asbestos related disease 
* Inclusive of claimant’s costs 


APS/Secretary of State  
APS/Minister(AF) AD2 
Parliamentary Branch 
AD CP Allowances 
D CPM 1 
D CPM 2 
DG Info 
DCDS (Pers) 
DCDS (Health) 
CinC Fleet 
CinC Naval Home Command 
CinC Land 
PS/2nd PUS 
Hd NP Sec 
Hd NMA Sec 
Policy Director 
APC Secretariat (2 copies) 
Personnel Director 
APC (Litigation) 
Finance Director 
Hd AMP Sec 
Science & Technology Director 
DG SP (Pol) 
D SP Pol(P&W) 
D SP Pol(Man) 
D SP Pol(MW) 
D SP Pol(PA) 
D SP Pol(SC) 
Ship Safety Management Office 

D CP Pol 
D Fin Pol 
D RP(Centre) 
D Navy RP 
D Army RP 
D Air RP 
DCDS(Health)  (2 copies) 
Medical Director General (Navy) – SO1 
AMD (Med Leg) (2 copies) 
AMD (Legal) (RAF) 
Med Org 2(RAF) 
SO1 Prev Med UKSC(G) 
CE/Met O 
CS HQ BF Cyprus 
Hd Def Admin (BDSW) 
AD SC Ops(Tpt)4 
Area Claims Officer NI 
SC Ops(Tpt)4d 
Area Claims Officer North West Europe 
SC Ops(Tpt)4d1 
Area Claims Officer Cyprus 
SC Ops(Tpt)4d2 
Area Claims Officer Balkans 
SC Ops(Tpt)4d3 
Area Claims Officer South Atlantic Islands  SC Ops(Tpt)4d4 
Area Claims Officer Iraq 
Area Claims Officer Afghanistan 
HQ Land Log Spt (Tpt) 
HQ STC S&M Pol 3e 
Command Secretary Fleet HQNI 
Command Secretary Naval Home 
HQ BFC J4(Tpt & Mov) 
Command Secretary Land 
Command Secretary AG 
Command Secretary Strike Command 
DTMA Bus Tvl Man (Sfc) 
Command Secretary PTC 
Civil Secretary PJHQ 
Command Master Driver HQ LAND 
DG Resources DLO 
Command Master Driver HQNI  
DG Resources DPA 
Master Driver HQ 2 SE Brigade 
DG Commercial DPA 
Master Driver HQ 49 Inf Brigade 
SO3 Log Sp Catterick Garrison 
OC Log Sp Unit Colchester 

TCWO HQ 42 Brigade 
Centre for Human Science, QinetiQ 
RLC Training group 
Queen Victoria School 
Chambers of: 
Duke of York’s Military School 
Robert Jay QC (5 copies) 
Ian Burnett QC (5 copies) 
Prison Service 
Philip Havers QC (5 copies) 
Home Office 
Jonathan Glasson (5 copies) 
Association of Personal Injury 
Lawyers (5 copies) 
Treasury Solicitor (5 copies) 
T Sol - Head of MOD Litigation 
Beachcroft Solicitors 
Morton Fraser Solicitors (3 copies) 
Berryman Lace Mawer Solicitors 
Crown Solicitor (3 copies) 
Merricks Solicitors 
Morgan Cole Solicitors 
Royal British Legion (3 copies) Prettys 
Vizards Staples & Bannisters 
HM Treasury – DDI Team 
Lockharts Solicitors 
CE/NHS Litigation Authority 
Biscoes Solicitors  
Health & Safety Executive 
Royal & SunAlliance plc (4 copies) 
Chairman - CCSU 
Willis Ltd 
Betesh Fox & Co 
MOD Library 
AXA Corporate Solutions Services 
(UK) Ltd 
House of Lords Library 
House of Commons Library 
Dominic Regan 
All DS&C(Claims) staff 
DS&C – Risk 
DS&C – Env AD 
DS&C – Audit AD 

Document Outline