0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Matthews v Ministry of Defence, Court of Appeal

7 June 2002
The issues

Humans rights – Crown Proceedings Act 1947 – Section 10

The facts

This was a claim in which the Claimant, who had served in the Royal Navy between 1955-1968, was allegedly exposed to asbestos fibres. The MOD denied the claim relying on Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (now of course repealed, save for claims in respect of matters arising before 15 May 1987). The Claimant argued that Section10 infringed the Claimant’s Article 6 rights. The Judge at first instance found that Section 10 was incompatible (finding also the Claimant was entitled to rely on Article 6 even though this claim arose from facts prior to the coming into force of the 1998 Act – following Wilson, the First County Trust Limited number 2).

The decision

1. Article 6 was concerned with judicial process. There was a distinction between procedural and substantive law. Procedural rules (regulating Court procedure) were subject to Article 6. Other rules which set out what rights and liabilities might arise under Civil Law were substantive rules and were not so subject. The effect of Section 10 was substantive and not procedural. Article 6 was not therefore engaged. There was therefore no imcompatability between Section 10 and Article 6.

Appeal allowed.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up