On 24th April 2026, Mr Justice Garnham handed down one of the most significant judgements in the history of military compensation claims. The case of Abbott and Others v Ministry of Defence [2026] EWHC 941 (KB) had been eagerly awaited by claimant solicitors, veterans, and legal practitioners across England and Wales. At its heart was a question that has affected thousands of former service personnel: how should noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) in military veterans be diagnosed?
The answer given by the court has far-reaching implications. This article explains what happened, why it matters, and what it could mean for you or a loved one who served in HM Armed Forces.
Background: A Long Road to Court
This litigation has been years in the making. The group action, brought on behalf of over 10,000 former service personnel, had its roots in a claim first issued in August 2017. The core allegation in each case was the same: veterans had suffered hearing loss and, in many cases, tinnitus (a persistent ringing or buzzing in the ears) as a result of exposure to hazardous noise during their military service.
Military service involves unique and extreme noise exposure that includes, gunfire, explosions, aircraft engines, armoured vehicles, and heavy engineering, all of which differs fundamentally from the noise found in industrial workplaces. Yet for decades, veterans’ hearing loss was being assessed using guidelines designed for factories, not battlefields.
The trial itself was heard over several weeks in late 2025 before Mr Justice Garnham in the King’s Bench Division of the High Court. Two lead claimants, Jack Craggs and Christopher Lambie, proceeded to full trial alongside a series of generic issues whose outcomes would apply to the entire cohort of thousands of waiting claims.
The Central Issue: Which Diagnostic Guidelines Apply?
At the heart of the case was a dispute between two sets of diagnostic guidelines used to assess whether a veteran’s hearing loss was caused by their service:
- The CLB 2000 guidelines — an older set of criteria, developed in the year 2000, which were originally designed to assess hearing loss in industrial and occupational settings.
- The revised Military NIHL guidelines (rMNIHL) — developed by Professor Brian Moore and others, and updated in 2022, specifically to address hearing loss patterns found in military personnel exposed to impulse noise such as gunfire and explosions.
The Ministry of Defence had long resisted the use of the rMNIHL guidelines. The CLB 2000 approach, when applied to veterans’ hearing tests, frequently returned a “nil” diagnosis — meaning no compensable hearing loss was identified. This is because military noise, particularly impulse noise, affects hearing at 8 kHz in ways that the CLB 2000 guidelines were not designed to detect.
“Trying to apply CLB 2000 to a military veteran’s hearing tests is like trying to push a square peg through a round hole. The tool was simply not built for the job.”
The claimants argued that the rMNIHL method was the scientifically appropriate tool for military cases. The MoD disagreed, raising concerns about false positives. The court was asked to decide which approach should prevail.
What Did the Court Decide?
Mr Justice Garnham came down firmly in favour of the rMNIHL guidelines as the preferred diagnostic method for military NIHL claims. The judge found that military impulsive noise produces audiometric patterns that are different from industrial steady-state noise, and that the CLB 2000 guidelines are generally unsuitable for military cases as a result.
The court also rejected the original, un-revised MNIHL method as having been superseded, and declined to endorse another method (MLP(18)) on the basis that its machine-learning approach could not be interrogated or cross-examined, an important principle in litigation.
On the question of quantification (how much hearing loss a veteran has suffered), the court preferred the Moore/Cox/Lowe method, and gave detailed guidance on baseline corrections and hearing aid awards.
The ruling is binding within the cohort of over 10,000 claims and will provide the framework for how those cases are now resolved.
What About the MoD’s Response?
The Ministry of Defence’s solicitors, Keoghs, have described the judgment as a win. It is important to approach that characterisation carefully.
The judgment runs to over 200 pages and contains nuanced findings on a number of issues. The court did find in the MoD’s favour on certain points, including the theory of latency (delayed onset of hearing loss) and cochlear synaptopathy (a form of hidden hearing damage), both of which were found to be unproven in humans on current evidence.
However, the central and most consequential finding was that the rMNIHL guidelines are the correct diagnostic tool, which is a significant outcome for claimants. Many veterans who received nil diagnoses under CLB 2000 may now have viable claims when reassessed under the rMNIHL approach.
What Does This Mean for Veterans?
If you are a veteran or currently serving member of HM Armed Forces and you have experienced hearing loss or tinnitus, this judgment is directly relevant to you. In particular, you should seek advice if:
- You have previously been assessed under the CLB 2000 guidelines and told that no compensable hearing loss was found
- You have been told that your hearing loss does not meet the threshold for a compensation claim.
- You have not yet made a claim but have noticed hearing difficulties or tinnitus that you believe are connected to your service.
- You are a family member of a veteran who may be affected.
It is also worth noting that limitation periods apply to personal injury claims — meaning there are time limits on when a claim can be brought. If you are unsure whether a claim is still open to you, please get in touch as soon as possible so that we can advise you.
How Clear Law Online Can Help
At Clear Law Online, our military law team has been closely following the Abbott litigation and has reviewed the judgment in full. We are experienced in bringing NIHL claims on behalf of veterans and understand the importance of getting the diagnostic approach right from the outset.
We offer a free, no-obligation initial conversation. We will listen to your situation, explain your options in plain English, and tell you honestly whether we think you have a claim worth pursuing.
There is no pressure, no jargon, and no upfront cost.
Get in Touch:
Phone: 0161 873 2740
Email: info@clearlawonline.co.uk
Legal Information Notice
This article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The law in this area is complex and fact-specific. If you believe you may have a claim, you should seek independent legal advice. Clear Law Online is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.