The mother of a serviceman killed in Afghanistan will try to take the Ministry of Defence to court in her campaign for better equipment for the armed forces.
Teresa Woods said she would contact lawyers after yesterday's Supreme Court ruling the families of people killed in action could pursue negligence cases against the Government.
The case was brought by relatives of three men killed by roadside bombs while in lightly-armoured Snatch Land Rovers in Iraq, despite years of criticism of the vulnerability of the vehicles.
Mrs Woods's 24-year-old son, Corporal Marcin Wojtak, died when the lightly-armoured Vector vehicle he was commanding – which was supposed to have been withdrawn from frontline service – was blown up in Helmand province.
He was serving with 34 Squadron, Royal Air Force Regiment.
The tougher Mastiff vehicles demanded by Cpl Wojtak's commanding officer arrived the day after his death, in October 2009.
Supreme Court judges ruled the MoD owes soldiers a duty of care under the law of negligence.
They backed a ruling by the Court of Appeal that the MoD could be liable if it "failed to provide sufficient protection while on active service".
Mrs Woods, 56, of Croxton Kerrial, said: "It is clear to me the MoD was negligent in sending my son out in a Vector vehicle when he was due to go out in a Mastiff.
"If he had been in the Mastiff, the bomb that killed him would have just given him a headache.
"We shall be contacting the law firm Hodge, Jones and Allen to see if we can join a class action against the MoD.
"There are many other mothers out there who now have the opportunity to pursue their cases in the courts.
"Our service personnel have the right to expect to be given the correct equipment."
Jocelyn Cockburn, of Hodge, Jones and Allen, said: "It is clearly in the public interest that the authorities are legally required to consider the safety of soldiers in times of conflict.
"It is right our soldiers should expect to be properly equipped."
After the ruling, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said: "The most important priority is the protection of our troops and since this litigation started, a wide range of protected vehicles including Mastiff, Ridgeback, Husky, Wolfhound, Jackal and Foxhound, have been available to commanders to match the most appropriate available vehicle to specific tasks based on the assessment of the operational risk.
"I welcome the fact the court has upheld the principle of the doctrine of combat immunity, albeit suggesting it should be interpreted narrowly.
"However, 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."
