Military Hearing Loss Claims – A Problem That Never Needed to Exist

The High Court’s judgment in the military hearing loss test cases (Abbott and others) is expected this month. The decision will determine how compensation for tens of thousands of veterans is assessed and valued.

Much of the commentary understandably focuses on the technical legal arguments — the competing medical methodologies and how hearing loss should properly be measured. Those issues are important and the court’s guidance will bring much-needed clarity.

But it is also worth stepping back and asking a more fundamental question:

How did this litigation arise at all?

For decades many service personnel developed permanent hearing loss as a result of training and operational noise exposure. Yet under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and the earlier War Pension scheme, the thresholds for compensation were set so high that the overwhelming majority of veterans received no award at all.

The predictable result was that injured personnel turned to civil litigation against the MOD. 

Over time those individual claims developed into the substantial body of litigation now before the High Court. The Abbott judgment will resolve important legal questions about methodology and valuation. It will not resolve the policy question of how this situation arose in the first place.

Earlier this year I wrote about the growing number of inexperienced firms and claims-generation businesses entering the military claims sector. Since then the volume of advertising directed at veterans — particularly on social media — has increased significantly.

Military personal injury litigation is a specialist field involving complex service records, detailed medical evidence and a proper understanding of military conditions. Yet veterans are increasingly being targeted by marketing campaigns suggesting that these claims are simple, quick or guaranteed.

The reality is that some operators appear far more interested in harvesting large volumes of claims than providing careful legal advice to individual veterans. That approach risks claims being poorly investigated, prematurely settled or pursued without a proper understanding of the legal and medical issues involved.

These concerns are not theoretical. I have recently drawn them to the attention of the Veterans Minister and the Solicitors Regulation Authority because the protection of veterans — and the reputation of the legal profession — requires proper standards in what is a highly specialised area of work.

The military hearing loss litigation itself has evolved over many years. During earlier stages of the proceedings I acted as spokesperson for a group of 16 claimant firms opposing a proposed Group Litigation Order. The High Court ultimately declined to impose that structure, and the claims have since progressed through the Matrix framework and those test cases are now awaiting judgment.

In truth, however, there was always a far simpler solution available.

Had modest compensation been available through the no-fault schemes for proven service-related hearing loss, many veterans would likely have accepted a straightforward administrative award and moved on. Instead, they were left with no choice but to pursue lengthy civil claims to obtain redress.

That policy choice has consequences. Litigation on this scale inevitably becomes complex, expensive and slow. It also exposes the public purse to potentially very substantial liabilities.

None of this alters the legal position today. Veterans who have suffered service-caused injury remain entitled to pursue compensation under the law, and those claims will continue to be advanced where appropriate.

But it remains worth reflecting that a fairer compensation framework, introduced earlier, might have avoided several years of litigation entirely.

Veterans did not create this litigation. Policy decisions did.

(C) Grant Evatt 09.03.2026