This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/8166671.stm

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 4 Version 5
Bomb blast engineer loses action Bomb blast engineer loses action
(18 minutes later)
An engineer who was seriously injured by a roadside bomb in Iraq has lost his damages action against his former employers and the Ministry of Defence.An engineer who was seriously injured by a roadside bomb in Iraq has lost his damages action against his former employers and the Ministry of Defence.
Graham Hopps was hurt when his Land Rover was hit by a blast in Basra.Graham Hopps was hurt when his Land Rover was hit by a blast in Basra.
Mr Hopps, 45, of Leeds, claimed the MoD left him inadequately protected in a civilian vehicle.Mr Hopps, 45, of Leeds, claimed the MoD left him inadequately protected in a civilian vehicle.
At the High Court, the judge said he had to reject the claim as it was not clear Mr Hopps would have been better protected in an armoured vehicle.At the High Court, the judge said he had to reject the claim as it was not clear Mr Hopps would have been better protected in an armoured vehicle.
Mr Hopps said he did not plan to appeal against the ruling. Mr Hopps said he did not plan to appeal against the ruling, but said he was "bitterly disappointed".
Iraq contracts "My life was turned upside down by what happened in Iraq and this claim has taken six years, so to find out it has come to nothing is very frustrating," he said.
The electrical engineer blamed his former employer, Mott MacDonald Ltd and the MoD for not supplying armoured vehicles to transport men working on contracts in Iraq. He was injured in October 2003 when the soft-skinned Land Rover provided by the army was hit as it travelled on a road known colloquially as Bomb Alley. We are pleased that the judgment demonstrates our commitment to trying to ensure the safety of all our staff Mott MacDonald statement
The electrical engineer had blamed his former employer, Mott MacDonald Ltd and the MoD for not supplying armoured vehicles to transport civilian workers in Iraq.
He was injured in October 2003 when the soft-skinned Land Rover provided by the army was hit as it travelled on a road known colloquially as Bomb Alley.
One passenger was killed and Mr Hopps' right arm and shoulder were shattered, leaving him with little movement, as well as hearing damage.One passenger was killed and Mr Hopps' right arm and shoulder were shattered, leaving him with little movement, as well as hearing damage.
The MoD and Mott MacDonald denied liability for the incident
Mr Hopps' counsel, Nigel Wilkinson QC, told Mr Justice Christopher Clarke the MoD should have recognised the existing arrangements of soft-skinned vehicles were not proper protection for those travelling in Iraq at that time.Mr Hopps' counsel, Nigel Wilkinson QC, told Mr Justice Christopher Clarke the MoD should have recognised the existing arrangements of soft-skinned vehicles were not proper protection for those travelling in Iraq at that time.
He also said Mott MacDonald should have ordered an investigation into the security situation and assessed it when the firm took on its contractual obligations.He also said Mott MacDonald should have ordered an investigation into the security situation and assessed it when the firm took on its contractual obligations.
The MoD and Mott MacDonald denied liability for the incident
But the judge said he found it impossible to conclude that if Mr Hopps had been in an armoured vehicle he would probably not have suffered his injuries or, at least, would have been less seriously hurt.But the judge said he found it impossible to conclude that if Mr Hopps had been in an armoured vehicle he would probably not have suffered his injuries or, at least, would have been less seriously hurt.
Denied liability
Dismissing Mr Hopps' case, he said: "The fact that I have done so in no way reduces the great credit due to him for the contribution which, at much personal cost, he has made to improving the lot of the Iraqi people."Dismissing Mr Hopps' case, he said: "The fact that I have done so in no way reduces the great credit due to him for the contribution which, at much personal cost, he has made to improving the lot of the Iraqi people."
In his ruling in favour of the defendants, who both denied liability, the judge said the number of attacks at the time of the incident appeared to be increasing, but their nature and the improvised explosive devices involved - and their consequences - did not seem such that armoured vehicles should have been ordered for civilian contractors. In his ruling in favour of the MoD and the firm, who both denied liability, the judge accepted the number of attacks at the time of the incident appeared to be increasing.
He added that he was not satisfied that the level of risk from improvised explosive device (IED) attacks was such that Mr Hopps should have been confined to the compound until an armoured vehicle was available to transport him. However, because of the improvised explosive devices involved - and the impact they had - they did not seem such that armoured vehicles should have been ordered for civilian contractors.
Mr Hopps said: "I am bitterly disappointed by the verdict. Risk assessments
"My life was turned upside down by what happened in Iraq and this claim has taken six years, so to find out it has come to nothing is very frustrating." Mott MacDonald said: "During Graham's contract with us to work in Basra on humanitarian reconstruction projects funded by the British Government, we ensured that he was always under the protection of the British military.
"We are pleased that the judgment demonstrates our commitment to trying to ensure the safety of all our staff and consultants."
An MoD spokesman said that "thorough risk assessments" had been undertaken before the explosion happened.
"There were [also] no reports of any suspicious activity," he said.
"The court upheld the defendants' contention that there had been no negligence in this matter and therefore there is no legal liability to pay compensation."