Military claims not subject to EL fixed success fees, says High Court

Military claims: significant number of EL cases in pipeline

Military claims: significant number of EL cases in pipeline

A High Court test case decided yesterday that members of the armed forces are not employees for the purposes of the pre-1 April 2013 fixed success fee regime in employers’ liability claims.

Counsel for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) told the court that the novel point was important in a significant number of continuing pre-Jackson cases.

Broni & Ors v Ministry of Defence [2015] EWHC 66 (QB) brought together three claims relating to injuries suffered by servicemen while training. Both Master O’Hare in two of them and Deputy Master James in the other decided that they were employees as required by the old CPR 45.20.

This defined an employee by reference to section 2(1) of the Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 as “an individual who has entered into or works under a contract of service or apprenticeship with an employer”.

The claimants argued that the law is clear that a serving member of the armed services is not an employee under a contract of service and there was no proper basis for construing part 45 more broadly.

The Ministry of Defence responded by calling for a purposive approach to the construction of the words ‘contract of service’.

Mr Justice Supperstone found for the claimants, ruling that there was “no scope for giving a broad or purposive interpretation”.

He added: “The Ministry of Defence owe a duty of care to servicemen whether they work under a contract of service or not, both at common law and under the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974.”

The judge acknowledged that the ruling could cause difficulties at detailed assessments if the court had to investigate whether the claimant had a contract of service.

Determination of the success fees was remitted to Master Haworth.


Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


21 September 2020

Why arbitration hasn’t worked for personal injury

I can’t say I’m surprised that PIcARBS looks to have run its course. While the lack of interest has been put down to lawyers not wanting to trial the service, market forces are decisive and the market is right.

Read More