TL;DR — Can I Reopen a Rejected MoD Hearing Loss Claim After Abbott?
- Outdated Testing: If your claim was rejected using the old CLB diagnostic method, it likely missed damage at 6kHz and 8kHz that the High Court now recognises as typical of military noise exposure.
- The New Standard: The rM-NIHL method, confirmed by Mr Justice Garnham in Abbott v MoD [2026] EWHC 941 (KB) as the preferred diagnostic approach, gives PDA Law a stronger evidential basis to challenge previous MoD decisions.
Why Your Claim Might Have Been Rejected Previously
If you were turned down, or your compensation felt far too low, there is a strong chance the diagnosis behind that decision used the CLB method. This is a testing framework built for continuous, industrial factory noise — not the sharp, impulsive blast of a rifle or artillery round.
CLB was designed to look for hearing damage clustered around 4kHz, the classic pattern of steady-state industrial noise. The problem is that military noise does not behave the same way. Weapons like the SA80 produce short, intense impulses. The High Court evidence records that firing an SA80 can expose the firer to sound levels of around 146 dB with blank rounds and up to 157 dB with live rounds.
This kind of "narrow band," peaky noise routinely damages the ear at 6kHz and 8kHz instead — frequencies the old CLB test simply was not built to catch.
The High Court also confirmed something many veterans have long suspected: significant asymmetry between the ears (the left typically worse than the right, consistent with the "head shadow effect" of right-shoulder firing) is common, if not the norm, in military hearing loss cases. If your earlier assessment treated a mismatch between your ears as a reason for doubt rather than a recognised pattern of military injury, that decision is now open to challenge. If you believe the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) or the MoD applied the wrong diagnostic standard to your case, you may be entitled to a fresh review.
Image Placeholder
A veteran reviewing medical documents or an audiogram chart with a specialist solicitor.
The Game-Changer: The 2026 Abbott v MoD Ruling
On 24 April 2026, Mr Justice Garnham handed down judgment in Abbott and Others v Ministry of Defence [2026] EWHC 941 (KB), the landmark test-case ruling at the heart of the Military Deafness Litigation.
The judgment resolved the central medical dispute that has shaped military hearing loss claims for years: whether CLB or the newer rM-NIHL method should be used to diagnose Noise-Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL) in veterans. The Court came down firmly in favour of rM-NIHL, finding that the old CLB method is generally unsuitable for assessing military cases. A method built for factory floors simply does not reflect how military noise damages hearing.
This matters enormously if your claim was assessed, or rejected, before this shift. A diagnostic method the High Court itself has now found to be the wrong tool for the job may have produced the wrong answer.
The "Date of Knowledge" Loophole
One of the most common reasons veterans are told they cannot claim is limitation — the idea that too much time has passed. Under the Limitation Act 1980, personal injury claims generally need to be brought within three years.
However, that three-year clock does not automatically start on the day you left service. It starts from your "date of knowledge" — broadly, the point at which you first knew your hearing problem was significant and knew it was, or could be, linked to your service.
For many veterans, that date is not fixed. If you were previously told your hearing was "normal" using an outdated diagnostic approach, and a proper rM-NIHL assessment now identifies genuine service-related damage that was not picked up before, that new diagnosis may itself establish a new, later date of knowledge.
Important Note on Limitation
Within the existing Military Deafness Litigation cohort, the MoD has already conceded limitation entirely under the "Matrix" agreement. The "date of knowledge" argument matters most if your claim sits outside that specific cohort, or if you were told your case was time-barred before that concession was reached. It is not a guarantee that a claim outside the limitation period will proceed — the Court retains discretion under Section 33 of the Limitation Act — but it is a genuine and often overlooked route worth having properly reviewed.
Image Placeholder
A close-up of a military audiogram chart highlighting the 6kHz and 8kHz frequencies, contrasting with the old 4kHz industrial standard.
The Scale of the Shift
To understand how far the legal landscape has moved, it helps to see the scale of what is happening. The Abbott judgment itself records that the Military Deafness Litigation now stands at 10,440 claims.
For that cohort, the MoD reached the "Matrix" agreement, conceding Crown immunity, combat immunity, breach of duty, contributory negligence, and limitation in exchange for a discount to the compensation you receive. In practical terms, this means the legal defences that used to derail so many claims before the medical evidence was ever properly examined have already been dealt with for cohort claims. The fight has shifted entirely onto causation and quantum — exactly where a strong, independent rM-NIHL assessment carries the most weight.
What This Means for You
None of this means every previously rejected claim will now succeed. Causation and quantum are still fought case by case, and the strength of your individual evidence still matters enormously.
But if your case was assessed using CLB, dismissed over asymmetry, or closed off on limitation grounds, the legal and medical basis for that decision may no longer reflect how the courts expect these cases to be handled. The specialist military claims team at PDA Law can instruct independent, rM-NIHL-compliant medical experts to review your case against this updated framework. We will advise whether you may be entitled to a fresh review of your claim, potentially alongside or instead of any award already made under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme.
We act on a No Win, No Fee basis wherever your case qualifies, so there is no financial risk in finding out where you stand. If you were previously turned down, get your case looked at again.
PDA Law is a specialist personal injury and military claims firm. This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your circumstances, please contact our team directly.