Tony Blair and Gordon Brown killed these men.
Every advice they had were that snatch vehicles were a deathtrap, and other allied forces wouldn't have dreamt of equipping their troops so poorly.
(And other similar posts)
Although I don't know the details of the legal claim, I believe it important that Snatch had already been deemed unfit for purpose in a more benign theatre and a programme endorsed to replace it.
It follows that, as part of any threat and vulnerability assessment (mandated upon MoD), any proposed use of Snatch in ANY theatre would be red flagged and the question would be asked "Is the intended use in a more, or less, benign environment to that in which Snatch is already unfit for purpose?"
On numerous occasions Ministers, on MoD advice, stated Snatch was fit for this intended purpose, when they knew very well it was not. This is made irrefutable by the existence of a funded endorsed replacement programme, with a firm In Service Date. It matters not if the proposed replacement vehicle was fit for this new purpose. (The replacement programme was already very late when it was cancelled, in the early 00s, which actually makes matters worse).
And the opinion of individuals such as myself doesn't matter either. Those responsible had already decided it wasn't suitable. A slam dunk, in legal terms; although I imagine MoD will continue to lie and wiggle.