1995

CA

Littrell v USA (No. 2) [1995] 1 WLR 82 Court of Appeal

The plaintiff, a US soldier, stationed in the UK, brought a claim against the US government in tort for negligent medical treatment at an American military hospital at his base. The US claimed state immunity [In this case medical treatment (usually jure gestionis) was considered jure imperii because of the whole context; neither ‘purpose’ nor ‘nature’ test can be applied without reference to the background context (see I Congreso del Partido 1988]

Hoffmann: A claim to state immunity in respect of an action of personal injury would ordinarily fail (5 SIA 1978) ‘a state is not immune as respect proceedings in respect personal injury caused by an act or omission in the UK’ However (16.2 SIA 1978) section 5 does not apply to ‘proceedings relating anything done by or in relation to the armed forces of a state while present in the UK’ So the question must be determined according to common law. According to I Congreso del Partido 1988, Was the act basis of the claim juri imperii or juri gestionis? To allow visiting US servicemen to sue their government would clearly be an interference with this aspect to the relationship (foreign sovereign’s rights to discipline) between the troops and their sovereign. The act was clearly juri imperii