Thousands of serving and former armed forces personnel sued the MoD for hearing loss and tinnitus suffered as a result of exposure to gunfire, artillery and other high-intensity noises. In April, Mr Justice Garnham rejected the MoD’s argument that military noise-induced hearing loss can be diagnosed and measured using the same methods as for industrial noise exposure. Garnham J held military noise is different from industrial noise and that the MoD’s approach would underdiagnose and undervalue injuries suffered, at Abbott and others v MoD [2026] EWHC 941 (KB).
The MoD argued both parties should bear their own costs as the outcome was mixed. Ruling last week, however, Garnham J rejected this approach, and held the claimants were successful on the key issues, at [2026] EWHC 2083 (KB).
He awarded the claimants 60% of their common generic costs, which amounted to almost £10m, and also ordered the MoD to make an immediate interim payment on account, pending finalisation of the full amount payable. He applied a reduction from the full amount to reflect the discontinuance of three test claims during trial and the MoD’s success on some scientific questions.
Simon Ellis, partner at Hugh James, which represented the claimants, said it was a ‘landmark’ costs order, which ‘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.
‘The diagnostic and scientific framework established by the generic judgment will now shape every military hearing loss claim going forward. 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.’
