0370 270 6000

Matthews v Ministry of Defence, House of Lords

18 February 2003
The issues

Human Rights – Crown Proceedings Act 1947 – Section 10.

The facts

This was an Appeal from the Court of Appeal on the part of the Claimant. The Claimant had served in the Royal Navy between 1955 and 1968 and was allegedly exposed to asbestos fibres. The Ministry of Defence denied the claim, relying on Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. That Act was subsequently repealed, save for claims in respect of matters arising before 15th May 1987. The Claimant argued that Section 10 infringed his Article 6 rights. The Court of Appeal found that Article 6 was concerned with the Judicial process. There was a distinction between procedural and substantive law. Procedural rules were subject to Article 6. Other Rules setting out what rights and liabilities might arise under Civil Law were substantive Rules and were not subject to Article 6. The Court of Appeal found that there was therefore no incompatibility between Section 10 and Article 6.

The decision

The Appeal would be dismissed. Section 10 was not a mere procedural bar. It was not a procedural limitation and was not incompatible with Article 6.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


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.


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