A controversial law to impose a time limit on serving or retired Armed Forces personnel from making a claim for an injury sustained while serving abroad should be scrapped, a Shropshire lawyer said.
The Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill was granted royal assent on April 29, and will mean claimants would have to bring an action against the Government within just six years.
The Government says action must be taken to reduce the number of claims and that the new clauses will not disadvantage individuals who have a valid case. But opponents say those affected will have less protection, and while six years might seem a generous period, there are many reasons why some claimants may wait longer.
Cyrus Plaza, who recently joined Shropshire law firm Lanyon Bowdler’s personal injury department, said service personnel and veterans would effectively have less access to justice than the average civilian under the Bill.
He said: “This Bill will seriously affect the chances of those serving or retired personnel from obtaining the justice they deserve.
“Military personnel are doing a wonderful job in serving their country and must be protected as much as is possible. We know personal injury and death in service happen in the Armed Forces, but it doesn’t mean those individuals should be denied the right to pursue justice through the courts when such action is warranted.
“This law fails to take into account the many reasons why a personal injury claim isn’t always made promptly, especially by Armed Forces personnel.
“The average civilian can ask the court to exercise their discretion to bring a claim out of time, but once this Bill is in place, service personnel and veterans won’t be able to do that.
“This is contrary to the Armed Forces Covenant which, as the Covenant itself says is a ‘promise by the nation ensuring that those who serve or who have served in the armed forces, and their families, are treated fairly’.
“As signatories of the Covenant, we are passionate about ensuring that Armed Forces personnel and veterans do not face disadvantages.
“The new law would be prejudicial to the very people we should be supporting and I would urge the Government to think again about the Bill and remove the time limits it will impose.”
Cyrus works in Lanyon Bowdler’s personal injury department in Shrewsbury and often attends the Operations Group run by the Armed Forces Community Covenant as part of the law firm’s commitment to military personnel.
“We feel very strongly about this Bill and fully support representations being made by the Association of Personal Lawyers (APIL) urging the Government to listen to concerns and reverse its stance on the six-year limit,” he added.
A statement by APIL has said: “Claimants will be shackled by an arbitrary and absolute six-year time limit. Some personnel are told that they are unable to pursue a claim while still serving, or told by those higher up the chain of command that they don’t have a valid claim.
“The culture of the Armed Forces is that, if people are told they cannot make a claim, it is unlikely that this will be questioned. It is only when people leave the service that they discover they could have been entitled to make a claim after all. This could then become too late if the bill becomes law.”
