Military Deafness Litigation: Landmark Judgment unlocks compensation in NIHL claims

Success for the claimants on the central questions of diagnosis and quantification of Military Noise Induced Hearing Loss claims

Harry Steinberg KC, Aliyah Akram, and Elliott Courcha of Outer Temple Chambers acted in the landmark military deafness litigation, instructed by Simon Ellis of Hugh James, against the MoD.

The High Court has today handed down judgment in the Hugh James Military Deafness Litigation. The decision of Garnham J is a decisive victory for the claimant group. The Court rejected the long-standing CLB and LCB methods and preferred the claimants’ case that military NIHL should be diagnosed and quantified by the rM-NIHL developed by Professor Moore and others. The Court’s findings on these and the other generic issues are binding on all the claims in the cohort.

The Court also made substantial awards of damages in the two test claims: Christopher Lambie suffers from severe hearing loss as a result of exposure to excessive noise in the military while Jack Craggs sustained tinnitus as a result of his military service.

Background

This decision follows the groundbreaking agreement last year between the parties which included significant concessions by the MoD on limitation, breach of duty and combat immunity. Read more on this agreement here.

Over the course of the 9-week trial, the Court heard generic expert evidence from ENT Consultants, audiologists, acoustic engineers, epidemiologists and experts in auditory perception and neurophysiology. 

Diagnosis

Diagnosis was the key issue in this military deafness litigation. The MoD argued that military NIHL could only be diagnosed by relying on the CLB method, developed by Professor Lutman and others.  

But the Court found that the type of noise in a typical military case differs from the normal industrial case – the severity of damage, mechanism of damage and audiometric presentation may be different. Since CLB was developed for industrial noise exposure it is not a suitable diagnostic method for military noise exposure. 

Instead, the Court accepted the claimants’ argument that the rM-NIHL method, applied with careful clinical judgment, is now the preferred diagnostic tool for military NIHL claims.

Quantification

A parallel debate ran on quantification. The MoD relied on the LCB method, also developed by Professor Lutman. But the same problem arose, LCB was not developed for military noise exposure and so is not suitable for military claims. 

Instead, the Court preferred the claimant’s proposal that NIHL should be quantified by the Moore, Cox and Lowe method which compares measured hearing thresholds against appropriate normative data, usually ISO 7029:2017/2024.

In assessing the loss, the 1, 2 and 3 kHz binaural average remains an appropriate baseline descriptor of the hearing loss, but the Court accepted the claimants’ argument that it was legitimate to also take into account loss at 4 kHz. 

Military Deafness Litigation Test Cases

The Court found that Mr Lambie suffered from severe hearing loss (over 1, 2 & 3 kHz; the right and left ear thresholds are 38.8 dB and 42.1 dB respectively) and made an award of £39,000 for his pain, suffering and loss of amenity. 

Mr Lambie also received £27,350 for the cost of private high-performance hearing aids – around £5,000 per pair – and an award of £64,800 for loss of earning capacity on a Smith v Manchester basis. On the facts of the case, Ogden disabled reduction factor was not applied.

In Mr Craggs’ case, the Court did not accept that his hearing loss was attributable to noise exposure in military service. He succeeded, however, on tinnitus. The Court found that he had developed tinnitus during service, that it had persisted and worsened since. The Court awarded £19,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenity and £445 for tinnitus counselling. 

Other generic issues

The judgment also resolved a number of further generic questions. 

• Pure tone audiometry to British Society of Audiology standards is the gold standard, but military screening audiograms are ordinarily suitable for screening and triage and may, when part of a consistent pattern, properly inform diagnosis and quantification.
• The Court rejected the MoD’s argument that there should be an automatic deduction of 6 dB deduction at 6 kHz whenever TDH39P earphones for hearing tests. 
• Hearing loss of less than 4 dB will be regarded as de minimis, unless a claimant can demonstrate appreciable damage. 
• The cost of private, high-performance, rechargeable hearing aids is likely to be recoverable with appropriate supporting evidence. 
• The theory that hearing loss may continue to develop after exposure has ceased, the ‘acceleration’ or ‘latency’ question, was held to be plausible and intellectually coherent but not yet proven in humans. The Court held that cochlear synaptopathy, sometimes called ‘hidden hearing loss’, was held to be not currently capable of being definitively demonstrated, or quantified, in humans before death. 
• Tinnitus usually begins during exposure or shortly after exposure to noise but delayed onset is possible – the closer the onset of tinnitus is in time to the exposure to dangerous noise, the more likely it is to be caused by it. 

Comment

The choice between rM-NIHL and CLB for diagnosis, and between Moore, Cox and Lowe and LCB for quantification, have been the pivotal issues in military NIHL litigation for years. The Court has now rejected the MoD’s position that CLB and LCB can simply be transposed from industrial deafness cases. 

The High Court has made clear that a different approach must be taken in military claims. Service personnel are exposed to some of the most intense sounds that can be found in any occupation, often without any hearing protection or with equipment that was faulty or inadequate. As a result, many thousands of veterans and serving members of the Armed Forces have suffered hearing loss and are now likely to be eligible for compensation.

Judgment

Read the full judgment here: Military Deafness Litigation Judgment 24th April 2026

Further information

Harry Steinberg KC is known for high value and high-profile personal injury litigation with a focus on head injury and fatal claims. Much of his work has an international law aspect and/or involves large groups. He acts for thousands of former and serving military personnel in three group claims involving this military deafness litigation, cold injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Harry has been described as “second-to-none” by Legal 500 UK and “a highly skilled practitioner known for his representation of large claimant groups” by Chambers & Partners.

Aliyah Akram is well known for her work on group litigation claims and has been involved in some of the largest group actions ever brought in the UK including the abovementioned group claims brought by military personnel against the Ministry of Defence for personal injury whilst in service. Many of her cases have an international aspect and she is also a specialist in industrial and environmental disease litigation. Aliyah is shortlisted in the Legal 500 Bar Awards 2024 as Personal Injury Junior of the Year.

Dr Elliot Courcha’s practice includes all areas of Personal Injury work including industrial and military disease. Prior to a career at the bar, Elliott had a ten year career as a doctor, both as a junior doctor and then qualifying as a GP. He has a broad range of experience in both primary and secondary care, and has significant experience of both Acute Medicine and Emergency Medicine and an extremely good understanding of the NHS and primary care systems. He also has a busy paperwork practice, providing advices on liability and quantum, drafting pleadings and schedules of losses.

To find out more about Harry, Aliyah, or Elliot contact Paul Barton on +44 (0)20 7427 4907.

News 24 Apr, 2026