Background
Thousands of current and former armed-forces personnel brought claims against the Ministry of Defence for noise-induced hearing loss. The litigation used generic issues and test cases to determine questions concerning the diagnosis, causation, and valuation of military noise-induced hearing loss across the wider cohort.
After a nine-week trial, the High Court decided the generic issues and awarded damages in the two remaining test claims, brought by Christopher Lambie and Jack Craggs. The claimants then sought 95% of their common costs and a substantial payment on account; the Ministry argued that the result was genuinely mixed and that there should be no costs order.
The Court’s Holding
The Court held that the claimants were very largely successful on the principal, work-intensive issues: the foundational audiological concepts, the preferred diagnostic method, and the method of quantification. They also recovered damages in both test cases. The Ministry nevertheless achieved material success concerning the use of military audiograms, latency and acceleration, cochlear synaptopathy, and the treatment of future-earnings loss, while some lead claims had been discontinued.
Taking the litigation as a whole, the Court ordered the Ministry to pay 60% of the claimants’ costs of trying the generic issues and the two test cases, subject to detailed assessment. It also ordered an interim payment of £2,515,194.95, calculated as 50% of 60% of the claimed common costs remaining after deducting £1,355,000 already paid on account.
Key Takeaways
- In complex group or test-case litigation, success depends on the parties’ results on the generic issues and their effect on the wider cohort, not merely on which way money moves in the lead claims.
- Partial success on significant issues justified reducing the claimants’ recovery to 60%, but did not support the Ministry’s request for no costs order.
- Because detailed assessment was ordered and there was no good reason to withhold an advance, CPR 44.2(8) required a payment on account; uncertainty about the claimed bill led the Court to use a cautious 50% estimate.
Why It Matters
The ruling illustrates how English courts allocate common costs where litigation resembles a group action but proceeds outside a formal Group Litigation Order. Courts may assess not only who prevailed in the test cases, but also which generic rulings will materially shape the remaining claims.
For the military hearing-loss cohort, the order places most trial costs on the Ministry while recognizing that its victories may defeat or reduce a meaningful number of claims. The judgment also demonstrates the importance of supplying properly certified costs material when seeking a large interim payment.