High Court Judgment in Military Hearing Loss Claims – A Clear Framework at Last

The High Court has now handed down its long-awaited judgment in the military noise-induced hearing loss test cases (Abbott & Others v Ministry of Defence).

This is a significant development in litigation affecting thousands of serving personnel and veterans.

A Clear Direction from the Court

The Court has provided detailed guidance on the key issues which have been holding up the resolution of claims.

In particular:

• The Court has preferred the claimant methodology for assessing and quantifying hearing loss, over the approach advanced by the Ministry of Defence
• Properly conducted audiometric testing, including in-service audiograms, is confirmed as a central part of the evidential picture
• Diagnosis and quantification are matters of clinical judgment, informed by the totality of the evidence
• Claims must be assessed holistically, rather than by rigid or purely statistical models

At the same time, the Court has introduced an important control:

• A de minimis threshold (less than 4 dB hearing loss), below which claims may not be actionable

What This Means in Practice

The Court has drawn a clear line between speculative claims and those supported by proper evidence, and has provided a structured framework for valuing those claims.  For many claimants, the central issue is no longer whether the Ministry of Defence is responsible, but how claims should be valued. That question can now be addressed with much greater certainty.

The Importance of Evidence

The judgment places particular emphasis on contemporaneous evidence, especially hearing tests carried out during service. In practical terms, claims supported by service records and audiometric evidence are now in a strong position to progress.

Conversely, claims without reliable evidence of any material deterioration in hearing during service are likely to face significant difficulty.

No Need for a New Scheme

There has already been mention about the possibility of a further compensation scheme. In my view, that is not where the focus should now lie. The Court has provided a clear legal framework for resolving these claims on an individual basis. What is required now is the proper and timely application of that framework.

It is also worth observing that, had the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme historically provided an adequate route to compensation for hearing loss, much of this litigation may not have been necessary.

What Happens Next

For clients of Alma Law:

• Cases which are already well advanced will now be reviewed as a priority
• Other claims will continue to be progressed in a structured and evidence-led way
• Further advice will follow once the implications of the judgment have been considered on a case-by-case basis

It is possible that aspects of the judgment may be subject to appeal. However, the Court has now provided a clear and workable framework within which claims can move forward.

This has been complex and hard-fought litigation. The judgment represents a major step towards resolving claims fairly and properly for our troops and veterans.

24.04.26 Grant Evatt

MD Alma Law and Veteran of 29 Commando