header-logo header-logo

12 August 2026
Categories: Legal News , Costs
printer mail-detail

MoD loses argument on costs

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) must pay the bulk of the legal costs in the military deafness litigation, the High Court has held

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, Mr Justice 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.’

 

Categories: Legal News , Costs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Maryam Syed KC, Church Court Chambers

NLJ Career Profile: Maryam Syed KC, Church Court Chambers

From childhood dreams of the Bar to some of the country's most challenging cases, Maryam Syed KC explains why she has never stopped standing up for others

DAC Beachcroft—Richard Breavington, Rachel Ford & Daniel Guilfoyle

DAC Beachcroft—Richard Breavington, Rachel Ford & Daniel Guilfoyle

DAC Beachcroft significantly expands Cyber team, hiring three Cyber partners

Browne Jacobson—Professor Clive Kay

Browne Jacobson—Professor Clive Kay

Browne Jacobson appoints senior healthcare leader Professor Clive Kay as strategic adviser

NEWS
CEDR has announced the death of its Founder President and first Chief Executive, Dr Karl Mackie CBE
Consumers will receive their Merricks v Mastercard compensation in the first half of next year, class representative and former Financial Ombudsman Walter Merricks has said
A law firm was not entitled to payment for jointly administering an estate as there was no charging clause in the will, the High Court Senior Courts Costs Office has ruled
The so-called ‘Dieselgate’ quantum trial will go ahead against Mercedes, after the High Court rejected an attempt by car owners to delay the proceedings
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) must pay the bulk of the legal costs in the military deafness litigation, the High Court has held
back-to-top-scroll