Ministry of Defence v AB [2012] UKSC 9 is an English tort law case, concerning causation, and material increase in risk.
British Armed Forces claimants argued that exposure to fallout from 21 nuclear bombs in the South Pacific from 1952 to 1958 increased the risk of illnesses they suffered. Radiation materially increased the risk of their diseases. MoD argued the claims were barred under the Limitation Act 1980 section 11(4). A group litigation order was made and 10 lead cases from 1,011 claimants were chosen, main claims issued in 2004. There were appeals on the extent of the MoD's knowledge, whether proceedings could start before the MoD acquired knowledge, and whether there was a time bar, or discretion under LA 1980 section 33 to let the claims proceed.
In the High Court, Foskett J held no claims were time barred, 5 of 10 had no requisite knowledge till 3 years before the claim, and other 5 should proceed under LA 1980 s 33. The Court of Appeal held claimants had knowledge to trigger claims before 3 years.
The Supreme Court held 4 to 3 the claims were time barred in 9 of 10 cases, and it was not appropriate to let claims proceed on a discretionary basis.
Lord Wilson said that before three years of issuing the claim, the claimants reasonably believed their injuries were capable of being attributable to the nulcear tests, because they had said so publicly many times. In any case, the claimants have great difficulty in establishing causation, applying section 11 would be absurd only for a claim to be struck out.
Lord Brown said the claimant has to verify in his claim form that he âÂÂbelievesâ facts stated in them are true, and on causation said the following:
Lord Mance gave a concurring opinion.
Lord Phillips dissented, but doubted they could establish causation.
Lady Hale dissented saying a claimant's subjective belief is no sensible basis for deciding whether a claim is time-barred.
Lord Kerr gave another dissenting opinion.