Court of Appeal upholds MoD liability for soldier injured at barracks

In ZZZ v The Ministry of Defence [2026] EWCA Civ 875, the Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by the Ministry of Defence against a ruling that it was liable for the catastrophic injuries suffered by a young soldier who fell from a second-floor landing at Bulford Barracks.

Background

The claimant was an 18-year-old rifleman who was required to live in MoD accommodation. In 2019, he fell over a low balustrade in his accommodation block and suffered catastrophic injuries.

He brought a claim against the MoD as both his employer and the occupier of the premises. The MoD argued that he was not a lawful visitor because he was outside the scope of his permission to be in the area.

It also relied on the defence of ex turpi causa, which can prevent recovery for damage arising from unlawful conduct, and sought a reduction for contributory negligence. The incident happened after members of a group had been drinking, with reports of an altercation shortly before the fall.

The trial judge found that the MoD had failed to carry out an adequate risk assessment. The balustrade was dangerously low, and the breach caused the claimant’s injuries. The judge rejected the MoD’s other defences.

Court of Appeal decision

The Court of Appeal dismissed the MoD’s appeal in its entirety. The court accepted the trial judge’s description of the incident as “alcohol-fuelled horseplay”, finding that there was sufficient evidence to reject the MoD’s account of a serious confrontation.

The court rejected the argument that the claimant had ceased to be a lawful visitor. It declined to overturn the finding that he had not committed the offences alleged by the MoD and said it would have been perverse to treat him as a trespasser because of the alleged altercation.

The court noted that although the balustrade complied with standards in force when the building was constructed, the question was whether the MoD should have identified the danger under current standards of professional care and skill.

Earlier risk assessments were inadequate, and a balustrade around 1,100mm high would probably have prevented the fall.

The court also upheld the refusal to make a deduction for contributory negligence. The burden of proof rested on the MoD, and the evidence was not strong enough to reverse the trial judge’s findings.

Why the ruling matters

The judgment shows that compliance with the standards in force when a building was constructed may not, by itself, establish that an occupier has exercised reasonable care. The court considered whether the danger should have been recognised when judged against current professional standards.

Claims involving alcohol or alleged wrongdoing will depend on the evidence. In this case, the MoD failed to establish illegality or contributory negligence, while the inadequate risk assessment and unsafe balustrade supported the finding of liability.