We have secured a landmark costs order against the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in the High Court, in litigation affecting tens of thousands of serving and former military personnel.
Following the conclusion of the Hugh James Military Deafness Litigation, one of the largest personal injury actions in England and Wales, Mr Justice Garnham today ordered the MoD to pay the Claimants’ legal costs, directly rejecting the MoD’s position that it should not be required to pay any costs at all.
Background
The Military Deafness Litigation is one of the most significant personal injury cases in England and Wales in recent years. With nearly 50,000 claims on the court register (a total that may exceed 100,000) it represents thousands of current and former military personnel who brought claims for hearing loss and tinnitus suffered as a direct result of their service, including exposure to gunfire, artillery, and other high-intensity military noise.
The litigation was collectively managed before Mr Justice Garnham in the High Court, King’s Bench Division. It involved a major generic trial lasting over nine weeks, examining the scientific and medical questions that would determine how such injuries should be diagnosed and what level of compensation would be appropriate. The Court heard from 13 expert witnesses, considered tens of thousands of pages of evidence and expert material, and received written closing submissions running to over 400 pages from each side.
The Substantive Judgment —April 2026
On 24 April 2026, Mr Justice Garnham handed down a 198-page judgment resolving the central generic issues in the litigation. The judgment was a clear and comprehensive success for the Claimants on the issues that matter most, and establishes the scientific and legal framework that will govern every military hearing loss claim brought before the courts.
The two most critical questions in the case were: first, how should hearing loss caused by military noise be properly diagnosed; and second, how should the extent of that loss be measured and valued. These issues were fundamental because the answers would determine the outcome of every claim in the cohort.
The MoD’s position throughout the litigation was that military noise-induced hearing loss should be diagnosed and measured using the same conventional methods applied to ordinary industrial noise exposure. The Claimants argued that military noise, such as that generated by rifles, artillery, and explosions, is fundamentally different in character and severity from industrial noise, and that conventional methods systematically underdiagnose and undervalue the injuries suffered by service personnel.
The Court found comprehensively in favour of the Claimants on both issues. It accepted the Claimants’ case that military noise is different in kind from ordinary industrial noise and that this difference has real and important consequences for diagnosis and assessment. The Court adopted the diagnostic and quantification methods advanced by the Claimants’ experts and rejected those relied upon by the MoD. It found that the methods preferred by the MoD were not suitable for assessing hearing loss in military cases, meaning that, had the MoD’s approach prevailed, a significant number of service personnel with genuine hearing loss caused by their military service would not have been properly diagnosed, and the compensation awarded to those who were would have been substantially reduced.
A central feature of the litigation was the MoD’s approach to the Claimants’ leading expert, Professor Brian Moore of the University of Cambridge. Rather than engaging with the merits of his scientific work, the MoD invited the Court to find that Professor Moore was acting as an advocate rather than an independent expert, and that his methods were designed to maximise compensation rather than to find the correct answer. The Court comprehensively rejected those attacks, accepted Professor Moore’s methods, and made clear that his expert evidence was reliable and independent.
The significance of the judgment extends well beyond the individual claimants in this litigation. The findings establish the scientific and medical framework for assessing every current and future military noise-induced hearing loss claim brought before the courts. Analysis conducted on behalf of the Claimants indicates that, as a result of the generic judgment, approximately 97% of claimants with reportable audiometric data are now likely to succeed in their individual claims.
The Costs Judgment — 7 August 2026
Following the substantive judgment in April 2026, the question of who should pay the substantial legal costs incurred to date. This key issue came before the Court for decision on 22 July 2026.
The MoD argued that the result had been a genuinely mixed outcome and that there should be no order for costs. In other words, that each side should bear its own legal costs. The Court rejected that argument in full. It held that the Claimants were the successful party on the key issues in the litigation and ordered the MoD to pay the Claimants’ costs.
Notably, at no point following the substantive judgment in April 2026 did the MoD make any offer to pay the Claimants’ costs, despite the fact that the outcome was plainly a success for the Claimants on the central issues. The Court was required to resolve the dispute entirely, at further cost and delay to the Claimants.
In its Judgment the Court awarded the Claimants 60% of their common generic costs. The total legal costs incurred by the Claimants in the generic litigation approach £10 million. The 60% award reflects the Court’s recognition of the Claimants’ success on the central issues, with the MoD ordered to pay the substantial majority of those costs. In addition, the Court ordered the MoD to make an immediate interim payment on account of costs, pending finalisation of the full amount payable (following another hearing, called a detailed assessment). This means the MoD must make a significant interim payment to the Claimants without delay.
Whilst we have sought a higher proportion reflecting the strength of the Claimants’ overall success, the Court applied a reduction from the full amount to reflect a number of specific factors. These included the discontinuance of three test claims during the course of the trial (all of which had been nominated by the MoD, rather than by Hugh James, and each of which turned on individual matters unrelated to the generic issues), and a small number of subsidiary scientific questions on which the Court found the MoD had some limited success at the boundaries of the evidence. The Court did not accept the MoD’s characterisation of those matters as a reason to deny the Claimants their costs altogether, but took them into account in determining the appropriate proportion.
Simon Ellis, Partner and Head of our Military Deafness team said:
“This judgment marks the conclusion of a long and hard-fought costs dispute in which the MoD asked the Court to make no costs order at all, despite the fact that our clients had succeeded so comprehensively on the issues that truly mattered. The Court has rightly recognised that the Claimants were the successful party. The diagnostic and scientific framework established by the generic judgment will now shape every military hearing loss claim going forward that is a profound and lasting result for the thousands of service personnel who put their trust in us.
What is particularly striking is that, following the substantive judgment in April, the MoD made no effort whatsoever to reach a sensible agreement on costs. Instead, it required the Claimants to litigate the costs question in full. This judgment should serve as a clear message that the courts will recognise success for what it is, and will not allow those who have lost on the central issues to avoid the costs consequences by re-characterising peripheral matters as a balanced outcome.
We remain absolutely committed to every one of our clients in this litigation. Despite the MOD fighting almost each and every point to date, this Judgment reflects that the Claimants have won on almost each and every issue so far. The legal framework is now firmly established. We will continue to press the MoD to resolve individual cases as swiftly and fairly as possible.”
Looking Ahead
The costs order follows a litigation journey spanning a number of years. We have represented the majority of Claimants throughout, and continues to act for thousands of serving and former military personnel. With nearly 50,000 claims on the court register, and a potential total exceeding 100,000, the work ahead remains substantial.
Individual claims will now be progressed using the scientific framework endorsed by the Court. The Claimants have the benefit of clear judicial rulings on the correct methods of diagnosis and assessment, and of the structured framework for resolving liability and quantum established by the Matrix agreement approved by the Court in July 2024.
We remain committed to achieving justice for those who served their country and who suffer, often in silence, from hearing loss and tinnitus as a consequence of that service.
