Durrheim & Ors v Ministry of Defence
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Tort Law
- Evidence Law
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appeal concerned claims of Noise Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL) by military personnel against the Ministry of Defence (MoD). The MoD aimed to centralize the claims at the High Court for uniform management and cost efficiency. The Senior Master dismissed this application, requiring the claims to remain in their respective County Courts. The appeal by the MoD contested the dismissal on six grounds, including misinterpretation of the Supreme Court's guidance in Smith, issues of commonality, and concerns about delay and proportionality. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, affirming that the claims were to remain individually handled, considering the individualized nature of duty of care in combat conditions and logistical concerns with case management.
Judgment
Mrs Justice Patterson:
This is an appeal by the Ministry of Defence from a judgment of Senior Master Whitaker dated the 6 th December 2013. His judgment dismissed an application by the appellant made on the 25 th February 2013 under section 41 of the County Courts Act 1984 for an order:
to transfer the personal injury claims, made by serving and former service personnel alleging noise induced hearing loss (NIHL) caused by service, which are listed at Schedule 1 to the attached witness statement of Helen Mary Horsfall, from existing County Courts all around the country to the High Court in London so that they may be case managed centrally;
to transfer any subsequent cases that raise the same issues to the High Court;
to provide for a common case management process and timetable for these claims
in order that the cases can be managed expeditiously, consistently and in a way that minimised use of public funds.
Permission to appeal was given by Mrs Justice Simler on the 17 th February 2014.
Background
The claims the subject of the application are claims in negligence for personal injury sustained by serving and former service personnel which allege NIHL caused by service in the armed forces.
A common issue in the claims is that NIHL has been caused in combat abroad or in pre-deployment training.
Prior to late 2011 claims of NIHL arising in the same way were dealt with on an individual basis in whichever County Court the proceedings were issued in. It is unknown how many such cases there have been but it has been described as a fair number.
Since late 2011 there has been a change in approach by the Ministry of Defence in how it deals with such cases. Although certain of the pending cases have been and are being completed in the local County Court they are to be regarded as run off cases. There were 62 claims in total at the time of the hearing. At the time of the appeal before me there were some 74 actual and prospective claims. I was told that 45 had been issued and 29 were at the pre-action stage.
All claims have been stayed pending the outcome of this appeal. The exception is that of Mr Ek Pun in which the parties have agreed that the appeal should be dismissed. I have approved a consent order to that effect.
There are six grounds of appeal. They are:
the Senior Master applied the wrong test to determine whether or not it was appropriate to order a test group of claims and misinterpreted the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smith v Mi