Landmark ruling for military families paves way for damages claims Philip is dead. Nothing is going to bring him back but this might help save lives in the future. They can no longer treat soldiers as subhuman with no rights. The test cases centred on whether the MoD has a duty of care in negligence claims if a soldier dies or is injured in combat and whether troops fighting overseas are still protected by the right to life under the European Convention of Human Rights. They involved soldiers killed or injured during the second Iraq war. Corporal Stephen Allbutt, 35, of Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, died in a "friendly fire" incident in March 2003, when his Challenger 2 tank was hit by another. Soldiers Dan Twiddy, of Stamford, Lincolnshire, and Andy Julien, of Bolton, Greater Manchester, were badly hurt in the incident. The other deaths involved the use of the much - criticised Snatch Land Rovers, which has been dubbed a "mobile coffin" and which the MoD announced it was replacing in 2009. Pte Hewett, 21, of Tamworth, died in July 2005 while similar explosions claimed the lives of Private Lee Ellis, 23, of Wythenshawe, Greater Manchester, in February 2006, and Lance Corporal Kirk Redpath, 22, of Romford, Essex, in August 2007. Relatives say the MoD failed to provide armoured vehicles or equipment which could have saved lives, and should pay compensation. But the ministry said decisions about battlefield equipment are for politicians and military commanders. The Supreme Court ruling only paves the way for cases to be pursued and does not mean damages will definitely be awarded. Each incident will be considered on its merits as to whether the Government was liable. Many deaths and incidents in the past are also likely to be considered "out of time" for bringing claims. L/Cpl Redpath's father, Colin Redpath, 57, of Hornchurch, Essex, said: "Hopefully this will help our armed forces' safety in future combat zones. We keep hearing politicians say our armed forces are the best in the world so let's give them the best equipment. Cpl Allbutt's widow, Debi, said there had been "very dark times" during her ten year battle but added: "If they properly equip the Armed Forces and look after the people in uniform better then they won't have to fight these legal battles, that's all we've wanted." Her son, Connor, 18, said: "It means a lot for my Dad. We've done everything we can for him now. Mr Hammond said: "I am very concerned at the wider implications of this judgment, which could ultimately make it more difficult for our troops to carry out operations and potentially throws open a wide range of military decisions to the uncertainty of litigation. We will continue to make this point in future legal proceedings as it can't be right that troops on operations have to put the European Convention on Human Rights ahead of what is operationally vital to protect our national security. However, the Supreme Court justices said they did not expect the ruling to hamper operations and there should be a "wide margin of appreciation" in future cases. Lord Hope, the deputy president of the court, said the "sad fact" was protection for soldiers on active service could never be complete and they deserve the country's respect. But it is of paramount importance that the work that the armed forces do in the national interest should not be impeded by having to prepare for or conduct active operations against the enemy under threat of litigation if things should go wrong. Lawyer Jocelyn Cockburn, who represented relatives, said: "Safety will not be the only consideration or even perhaps the primary consideration but it is right that our soldiers should expect to be properly equipped."