The military accepted that noise exposure was part of the job. That does not excuse the damage it caused.
I The argument
When a veteran files a hearing loss claim, one of the first defences tends to run along these lines: you knew the job was loud. You signed up for a role that involved aircraft, artillery, and machinery. The noise was an inherent part of service, and you accepted that when you enlisted.
There is a grain of truth in it. Military service has always involved noise. But knowing that a job involves noise exposure is not the same as consenting to avoidable hearing damage. The obligation to provide adequate hearing protection, to limit unnecessary exposure, and to monitor the hearing health of personnel existed regardless of the general demands of the role. When that obligation was not met, the damage that followed was not simply the price of service. It was the result of a specific, identifiable failure.
II How solicitors responded to it
Many veterans who pursued hearing loss claims found that this argument, about consent and the nature of the job, was used to reduce or dismiss the value of their claim. The key question is how their solicitor responded to it. Experienced solicitors in this area know how to counter those arguments. They know how to establish the duty of care, demonstrate where it was breached, and argue for a settlement figure that properly reflects the injury and its long-term consequences.
Veterans who were not represented by those solicitors were at a disadvantage from the start. A solicitor who accepted the consent framing without properly challenging it, who did not build medical evidence strong enough to push back against it, or who settled quickly rather than pressing the case, may have cost their client a very significant sum.
Knowing that a job is loud is not the same as consenting to avoidable hearing damage caused by a failure to provide adequate protection.
III The professional negligence question
If your solicitor accepted the noise exposure defence without adequately challenging it, or settled your claim for less than it was worth because they did not build the strongest possible case, that is a professional failing. Not every solicitor who handles military hearing loss claims has the specialist knowledge to do it well. Many general practitioners take on these cases and process them without ever coming close to the compensation their clients deserve.
The question is not whether you have grounds to sue the Ministry of Defence again. That door may well be closed. The question is whether you have grounds for a professional negligence claim against the solicitor who handled the original case. That is a very different question with a very different answer, and it turns on what the solicitor did and failed to do, not on the merits of the original underlying claim.
Time limits apply to professional negligence claims, and the clock starts from when you knew or should have known that you may have suffered a loss as a result of your solicitor's conduct. If your settlement was in recent years, you likely still have time. If it was longer ago, the position depends on when you first had reason to believe something went wrong. It is worth getting that question answered by a specialist without delay.
The broader lesson
The noise exposure defence is one of several arguments that the Ministry of Defence has used in hearing loss litigation over the years. Experienced specialist solicitors know all of them, and they know how to build cases that are resilient to them. Veterans represented by solicitors who were not familiar with those arguments, or who did not push back against them with sufficient force, may have been disadvantaged in ways they were not aware of at the time.
Looking back at how a claim was handled can be uncomfortable, but it is a necessary part of understanding whether a professional negligence claim exists. A free assessment through Sold Short provides that perspective, drawing on the experience of solicitors who deal with exactly these cases and who can identify quickly whether the original handling met the required standard.
Sold Short exists to connect veterans who have these questions with the specialists who can answer them. The assessment is free, it draws on genuine expertise in this area, and it provides a clear and honest picture of whether the original claim was handled to the standard it deserved. From that starting point, the veteran can decide how to proceed with full information rather than uncertainty.
Sold Short works with veterans who believe their hearing loss claim was mishandled. Specialist solicitors. No win no fee. Free review. Find out where you stand.
