Expert Witness Journal Issue 67 June/July 2026 - Flipbook - Page 89
The alleged presence of cochlear synaptopathy has
been used by Prof Moore in a number of cases to
explain the presence of noise damage in individuals
with normal audiograms. He also suggested that it
was likely that both remaining lead Claimants had
a degree of cochlear synaptopathy. The Claimants
accordingly proposed that cochlear synaptopathy in
the context of military noise, is both plausible and
a potential contributor to speech-in-noise di昀케culty
and tinnitus, and should be weighed accordingly.
could be attributed to it. Having reviewed all of the
evidence, the Court concluded that:
738. Tinnitus normally begins during exposure to
noise or shortly after the cessation of noise. It is not
possible to identify an arbitrary time after exposure to
noise beyond which a claim should not be considered.
The most that can be said is that the closer the onset of
tinnitus is in time to the exposure to dangerous noise,
the more likely it is to be caused by it. The longer the
period between the end of exposure and the onset
of tinnitus the greater should be the intensity of the
examiner’s scrutiny of the circumstances of the case
and the veracity of the informant. And the Court,
faced with a disputed claim will have to be equally
circumspect.
The Defendant contended that for none of the lead
Claimants (or anyone in the wider cohort), can noiseinduced cochlear synaptopathy be (i) de昀椀nitively
demonstrated, (ii) persuasively demonstrated by
proxy measures, (iii) quanti昀椀ed, (iv) disentangled
from age-related synaptopathy, or (v) connected to
any particular adverse e昀昀ect.
De Minimis
It was common ground between the ENT surgeons
that a hearing loss of 4-5 dB would be clinically
signi昀椀cant. It follows that a hearing loss of less
than 4 dB, with no other consequences, should be
considered de minimis:
In order to determine whether such a phenomenon
could be proven in a particular individual, and
indeed quanti昀椀ed/apportioned, the Court heard
evidence from Professors King and Plack, Auditory
Neuroscientists, whose evidence was taken by
‘hottubbing’.
681. A hearing loss of less than 4dB without other
consequences should be regarded as de minimis. It
will be a matter to be determined on a case-by-case
basis whether exposure to noise which causes loss
below that cut o昀昀 nonetheless causes appreciable
damage.
The fundamental issue for the Claimants was that
cochlear synaptopathy can only be diagnosed
post-mortem and there has only been one study in
this area, Wu et al 2021. Accordingly, there is no
diagnostic gold standard for a living individual and,
given that cochlear synaptopathy likely occurs with
age, no way to know how much synaptopathy is to be
attributed to noise exposure.
Damages for Future Loss of Earnings
The Claimants had sought to argue that, where an
individual is disabled by reason of their hearing
loss, they will be entitled to damages for future loss
of earnings calculated on an actuarial basis using
the data set out in the Ogden Tables. It has become
commonplace in these cases for large future loss
of earnings claims to be advanced on this basis,
including by individuals who were discharged from
the military many years ago and who have su昀昀ered
no past loss of earnings.
The Defendant’s arguments were accepted and the
Court found as follows:
605. In conclusion, in my view the Defendants are
correct when they submit that cochlear synaptopathy
cannot de昀椀nitively be demonstrated, let alone
quanti昀椀ed, in humans before death. ‘Proxy measures’
of cochlear synaptopathy are less than certain and
there is no gold standard test for the condition.
Studies on military personnel suggest noise may lead
to cochlear synaptopathy but there is no certainty
of that and these studies have no application to
the circumstances of individual Claimants. In any
event, cochlear synaptopathy occurs with ageing in
humans and there is no mechanism for stripping out
‘synaptopathy of ageing’ from ‘synaptopathy of noise
exposure’ or of establishing that noise exposure made
an identi昀椀able di昀昀erence to hearing ability either
in the presence of audiometric hearing loss or in its
absence.
This issue arose speci昀椀cally in the case of Mr Lambie
who, having left the Royal Navy in 2021, has gone
on to have a successful career as a management
consultant in defence intelligence. Despite having
su昀昀ered no past loss of earnings, Mr Lambie
advanced a claim for £370,000 for future loss of
earnings and pension, calculated on a multipliermultiplicand basis.
The Learned Judge heard employment evidence on
behalf of both parties, unhesitatingly preferring the
evidence of the Defendant’s expert Mr Hailstone
that, as regards future promotion prospects, it was
Mr Lambie’s aptitude which was likely to dictate his
career progression; not his hearing loss.
Tinnitus
It was common ground between the experts that
tinnitus which begins during or shortly after noise
exposure could be attributed to it. A question arose,
however, as to the extent to which tinnitus which
arose many years after cessation of noise exposure
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
The Court ultimately concluded that to adopt
a multiplier-multiplicand approach in this case
would produce an obviously unreal result. Having
87
JUNE 2026
