Since Crown Immunity was revoked in May 1987, save for some limited combat immunity restrictions, claims by service personnel against the Ministry of Defence can be made for personal injury in largely the same way as for civilian employees.
Although not strictly a form of employment (rather a form of service for the crown) the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and Service Personnel is for all intents and purposes considered on an employer/ employee basis.
Two factors were given to explain such an the increase:
Whilst the increase caused by the Kenya fire can be considered a one-off, clearly the exponential increase in NIHL claims (for the fourth year in a row) is not.
With the Abbott military noise induced hearing loss litigation finally heading to trial this month, the rise in military NIHL claims seems to show no signs of slowing down.
Over the past few years, such claims have risen significantly:
2019/20: 2,505
2020/21: 1,522
2021/22: 3,269
2022/23: 4,571
2023/24: 13,748
Of course, the downward blip in 2020/21 was during ‘peak covid’.
Military NIHL claims are now well-established within legal circles, and widely known about within the military and ex-military community at large. On this basis the increase is no surprise. The outcome of the Abbott litigation over the course of the next few months seems likely to add further fuel to the military NIHL litigation fire. Settlement of some of the Abbott cases has already attracted coverage in the national media.
Total payments (which includes damages and claimants’ costs but not MOD’s own legal costs) reached a weighty £180 million.
The majority of that sum (£135.5 million) was paid in respect of Service Personnel Employer’s Liability cases, reflecting the ongoing cost of occupational injury claims against MOD.
While just 27 clinical negligence claims were settled, these still cost MOD £11.5 million.
These figures confirm that the Ministry of Defence remains one of the UK’s largest single defendants in personal injury litigation.
The ongoing rise in NIHL claims, and some consistently high-value awards, suggests that there is no sign that military claims are likely to reduce in number in the short-term.
Image: © Crown copyright 2025, used under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Gregory v H J Haynes Limited [2020] EWHC 911 (Ch), on appeal before Mr Justice Mann Introduction: This was an appeal from a decision by a District Judge who had declined to use the discretion to disapply the limitation period as available under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980.
Case analysis of the 9 key findings in this mesothelioma case caused by exposure to asbestos.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) released its workplace health and safety statistics for Great Britain, covering the 2024/ 25 period.
If you would like to instruct Jim to help you with your case, you can do so by getting in touch with Parklane Plowden Chambers.