Abbott v Ministry of Defence: Why Some Military Hearing Loss Claims May No Longer Succeed

The High Court’s decision in Abbott v Ministry of Defence has fundamentally changed the way military hearing loss claims are assessed.

Many veterans have asked me the same question:

“If the Matrix Agreement removed the legal obstacles, why can’t every claim now succeed?”

The answer lies in one word: causation.

The Matrix Agreement was a significant step forward. It resolved many of the legal arguments that had prevented veterans from pursuing compensation, including issues such as limitation, Crown immunity, breach of duty and contributory negligence.

However, the Matrix did not remove the need to prove that a veteran has compensable military noise-induced hearing loss.

That remains an essential part of every claim.

The importance of your military hearing tests

One of the most important pieces of evidence in any military hearing loss claim is your service audiograms.

These hearing tests are not viewed in isolation. Instead, they are considered alongside your entire audiometric history, looking for a consistent pattern of hearing deterioration during military service.

Occasionally, an individual hearing test may appear unreliable or inconsistent with the overall picture. Where that happens, little or no weight may be placed upon it. In most cases, however, the audiogram closest to the end of military service is likely to be one of the most important pieces of evidence when deciding whether hearing loss was caused by military noise exposure and whether it is sufficient to justify an award of damages.

What changed in Abbott?

Before Abbott, some experts considered that military noise exposure could continue to affect hearing for many years after a veteran had left the Armed Forces.

The High Court accepted that this theory is scientifically plausible. However, it concluded that the science is not yet sufficiently developed to identify or measure post-service deterioration in an individual claimant.

As a result, the Court held that claims must be assessed on the evidence of hearing loss that can properly be attributed to military service itself.

That finding has changed the prospects of success in many military hearing loss claims.

It means that some veterans who have genuine hearing difficulties today are, unfortunately, unable to establish that those difficulties are legally attributable to their military service in a way that justifies an award of compensation.

Every case is different

No two claims are the same.

Some veterans have clear evidence of compensable military noise-induced hearing loss and will continue to recover substantial compensation.

Others, despite many years of loyal service and genuine hearing problems, may no longer satisfy the legal test required following Abbott.

That can be disappointing, but it is far better to understand the legal position at an early stage than after months or years of unnecessary litigation.

Our approach

Once your service medical records have been obtained, we carefully review them alongside the medical evidence.

If they demonstrate compensable military noise-induced hearing loss, we will pursue your claim robustly and do everything we can to achieve the best possible outcome.

If they do not, we will tell you so.

That is not because we are unwilling to fight difficult cases. We have always believed that our role is to give independent, objective legal advice based upon the evidence and the law as it stands.

Our duty is not to tell veterans what they want to hear. Our duty is to tell them what they need to know.

Veterans deserve clear, honest advice from the outset—not false hope.

Grant Evatt, Managing Director, Alma Law

31 July 2026

 This article provides general guidance following the High Court’s decision in Abbott v Ministry of Defence. Every military hearing loss claim turns on its own facts and medical evidence, and nothing in this article should be taken as advice about any individual case.