Under the sea
City-based Rosenblatt Solicitors last week won a victory in the High Court on behalf of 1,000 servicemen who had argued that they suffered ill health as a result of nuclear testing carried out by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in the Pacific Ocean in the 1950s.
The MoD rejected the claims, saying that because the testing was carried out between 1952 and 1958 the Limitation Act (1980) should apply. It also argued that the claims were “doomed to fail” on the issue of causation and they had “no reasonable prospect of success”.
Mr Justice Foskett disagreed and granted permission for the veterans to sue the Government. While this is a major victory in itself, the case was among the largest ever funded on an after-the-event (ATE) insurance premium.
When the claimants first approached a solicitor about the possibility of pursuing compensation in 2001 they were entitled to legal aid. But when the legal aid rules were changed the claimants were left without the cash to fund the case.
As Rosenblatt senior partner Ian Rosenblatt states: “They were left high and dry.”
In 2004, the veterans approached Rosenblatt to seek an alternative funding arrangement. Together with funding broker The Judge the firm arranged an ATE insurance package with underwriters Brit Insurance and agreed to take the case on a conditional fee arrangement (CFA) basis.
“Others may be talking about doing this, but we’ve been doing it on reasonably high commercial cases for clients who can’t afford to take on the catastrophic risk of losing cases and having to pay the other side’s costs for some time,” said Rosenblatt partner Neil Sampson.
The Government will now have to pick up the £5m bill for the premium issued by Brit, which has helped pay for the legal costs built up throughout the case.
Major litigation practices have been talking about the possibility of working with CFAs for some time, but, especially now that litigation departments are expected to prop up recession-hit firms balance sheets, cashflow demands often make this a difficult option to consider.
There’s no getting away from the fact that litigation is a costly business, but alternative funding arrangements shouldn’t take a back seat just because firm finances are depleted. Just ask those 1,000 servicemen.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (23)
James Bone | 11-Jun-2009 2:12 pm
I am genuinely delighted for Ian and his team. If anyone deserves a break it is hard-working and philanthropic Mr Rosenblatt.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Jun-2009 2:14 am
As one of the claimants, on behalf of my deceased husband , I will be for ever grateful and appreciative of Mr Rosenblatt, without his support and willingness to stay the course we would have been ignored and defeated once more by the MOD
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-Jun-2009 1:19 am
A very significant win and all veterans are both grateful and appreciative of Mr Rosenblatt and his team for their efforts.
Regrettably, the British MOD are unlikely to abandon their unsupportable and totally unjustifiable position after fifty years odd of blanket denial of their criminal actions against, not only their own Service personnel but also Servicemen of other 'supposedly' friendly nations. England's total lack of empathy and respect for those servicemen should never be forgotten.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 18-Jun-2009 1:25 pm
i would like to add my thanks along with all the other vets for the hard work that Mr Roenblatt and his team have and are continuing to do for the servicemen who served during the nuclear tests because lets face it how many people give a toss about nuclear tests and the servicemen involved . i was 18 when i went to xmas island i am now 70 how long can i last who knows but its comforting to know that rosenblatts solicitors are in our corner a heartfelt thankyou
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jumpin' Jack Splatt | 18-Jun-2009 5:45 pm
Mr. Rosenblatt clearly has more fibre than a box of bran flakes.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
d.mcintyre | 19-Jun-2009 9:31 am
THANKYOU ROSENBLATTS .ONE OF THE COMMENTS SAYING THE GENERAL PUBLIC DONT CIVE A TOSS IS NEARLY SPOT ON MOST DONT KNOW WHERE CHRISTMAS ISLE IS OR CARES,WE NEED MORE PUBLICITY,FROM THE MEDIA
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
James Bone | 19-Jun-2009 8:26 pm
There is something rather unseemly about the string of sarcastic comments that followed my first one - if you have nothing constructive to say then please keep your comments private - rather than post them on this forum for Rosenblatt and the genuine vets and their families to see
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Whitton | 20-Jun-2009 1:16 pm
Congratulations to Mr Rosenblatt and all his staff who dealt with my case in a most friendly and courteous manner,well done.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
amanda coates | 21-Jun-2009 6:56 pm
I am a veterans daughter who is disabled and really hope the service men get all the deserve, its been an long time coming.
I did a interview with my local paper about how life is as a disabled person, want to keep this in the public eye check it out on there web site Evening Star, Ipswich.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Colin Duncan | 22-Jun-2009 10:05 am
A very well deserved win. High time the MOD accepted the proven information available on the effect af radio active poisoning. I have also just won a case at Tribunal with respect to radio active poisoning while on detachment to Peru with 543 sqn in 1974. This has taken 4 years of fighting but with the assistance of the Veterans Association we won. Well done all for not giving up.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment