Military Hearing Loss Claims: The Truth About the 1987 Cut-Off

What the law allows, what it doesn’t — and why many veterans are unfairly left without a remedy

As both a former serviceman and a solicitor who acts exclusively for injured personnel, this is one of the hardest conversations I repeatedly have with veterans:

“We did the same training. We fired the same weapons. We were exposed to the same noise, unprotected. So why can some claim — and others can’t?”

It’s a fair question. 

Crown Immunity — The Legal Line in the Sand

Until 15 May 1987, service personnel had no right to sue the Ministry of Defence for any personal injury caused by employer negligence. That was because of Crown Immunity — a complete legal shield.

After that date, the law changed. From then on, soldiers gained the same legal rights as civilians.

That single date is why the division exists today.

It has nothing to do with:

• how loud the weapon systems were
• whether the exposure was in training or on operations
• or how severe the resulting hearing loss may now be

It is a legal distinction only — not a medical one, and certainly not a moral one.

Why a Pre-1987 Class Action Would Almost Certainly Fail

I am often asked whether a class action on behalf of pre-1987 veterans could force accountability.

I understand the motivation completely. But in my professional opinion, such an action would almost certainly be struck out before it even got traction, because the courts remain bound by the doctrine of Crown Immunity no matter how compelling or widespread the injuries may be.

The Military Hearing Loss “Matrix” — Who It Really Helps

There is also widespread misunderstanding about the Military Noise-Induced Hearing Loss matrix.

The key point is this:

👉 The matrix works best for claimants whose majority of service falls after 14 May 1987.

Noise exposure before that date remains legally immune and is therefore discounted within the matrix calculation. As a result:

• those with substantial post-1987 service often have strong claims
• those whose service was mainly pre-1987 usually do not

Again, this has nothing to do with whether the injury is real — it is simply how the law is currently applied.

The US 3M Litigation — My Honest View

Some veterans have asked me about the large US litigation involving 3M and defective hearing-protection equipment.

Let me be clear: what follows is my personal professional opinion — and I may yet be proved wrong.

However, I do not presently believe that the US 3M litigation will open a meaningful route for UK service personnel, either before or after 1987. In the UK, the correct legal defendant remains the MOD as employer, not the overseas manufacturer of the equipment. Different law, different jurisdiction, different liability framework.

I would be delighted to be proved wrong on this — but at present, I do not see it.

The Uncomfortable Truth

Many who served before 1987 were exposed to:

• sustained automatic weapon fire
• heavy artillery
• aircraft and vehicle noise
• explosives and live fire exercises

Often with little or no effective hearing protection.  Yet at present, despite the obvious injustice, the law offers no civil remedy for those injuries.

Grant Evatt – Military Claims Solicitor & Veteran

08.12.25