Expert Witness Journal Issue 67 June/July 2026 - Flipbook - Page 83
Abbott v Ministry of Defence:
The Highlights
by Kate Longson, Barrister at Ropewalk Chambers.
The long-anticipated judgment in Abbott v Ministry of
Defence has now been handed down. Kate Longson,
who was instructed as junior counsel to the Ministry
of Defence, summarises the key aspects of the
judgment.
•
•
•
•
•
•
In 2021, Hugh James solicitors issued a Claim Form
in the name of David Abbott and approximately 3500
other Claimants for military noise-induced hearing
loss. Since that time, thousands more have been
added to that claim form and many more thousands
of claims have been brought or intimated by other
昀椀rms of solicitors.
Reliability of Military Audiometry
It had been the Claimants’ position that military
audiograms are inherently less reliable than BSA
compliant audiometry and that, whilst they may be
suitable for screening purposes, they could not be
used for the purposes of diagnosing or quantifying
NIHL.
Those who have been following the case will already
know that, in the run up to the trial which took place
from October to December 2025, the parties selected
six test cases to be used as a vehicle for resolving
various generic issues concerning causation and
quantum which arose across the cohort, breach
of duty, limitation and various other issues having
been compromised by way of a settlement matrix.
The Defendant had argued that the overwhelming
majority of military audiograms were obtained
in good faith and using appropriate equipment.
There was accordingly a legitimate presumption of
accuracy and where, as in the case of Mr Lambie,
there was purposeful inaccuracy, such would likely
be readily apparent.
Of the six test cases selected, two settled immediately
prior to trial, and two discontinued during the
course of the trial. The two remaining cases, Jack
Craggs and Christopher Lambie, fortunately covered
all of the generic issues, allowing for their resolution
by Garnham J in this lengthy and comprehensive
judgment which favours the Defendant in a number
of notable and material respects, not least on the
issues of latency, synaptopathy and the reliability of
military audiometry.
The Claimant’s position was derived from the generic
evidence of Prof Moore who had suggested in his
report that there is “persuasive evidence to suggest that
occupational audiograms obtained during military service
are often unreliable”. However, as noted by the Court,
that evidence was never identi昀椀ed and, by the end
of the trial, the Claimants’ experts had conceded
that military audiometry cannot be disregarded on
a generic basis.
I intend, in due course, to produce a mini-series
of blogs addressing the main generic issues, some
of which have wider implications, individually. For
now, the following will hopefully provide a helpful
summary of the Court’s 昀椀ndings on the most
pertinent issues, namely:
•
The Court’s conclusions ultimately favoured the
Defendant:
233. It follows, that to a substantial extent, I accept
the Defendant’s submissions on this issue. My
conclusion, against the evidential background set out
above, are as follows:
The reliability of military audiometry;
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
The appropriate method for the diagnosis
and quanti昀椀cation of military noise-induced
hearing loss;
Latency;
Cochlear synaptopathy;
Tinnitus;
De Minimis;
Assessment of damages for future loss of
earnings.
81
JUNE 2026
