Former solider has claim for hearing loss arising from vehicle testing role dismissed by English High Court

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] EWHC 1145 (KB)
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  England and Wales High Court
• Judge:
  His Honour Judge Bird

Jonathan Bevan drove and tested Ajax armoured vehicles as part of his duties between 2017 and 2020, which he claimed caused him to suffer hearing loss, tinnitus, and psychological damage leading to further hearing loss. While the defendant admitted breach of duty, the issue of causation remained open to determination by the court.

The case was heard in the High Court of England and Wales, King’s Bench Division, by HH Judge Bird. Tim Meakin appeared for the claimant and Jim Hester and Georgia Banks appeared for the defendant.

Disputed the timing

The claimant joined the Household Cavalry Regiment in 2002. Between January 2017 and March 2021, he was stationed at General Dynamics in Merthyr Tydfil. He was taught how to drive the Ajax vehicles manufactured by GD and operate their weapons systems, with instructions to test the vehicles and report any issues so they could be deployed for the British Army to use.

Whilst inside the vehicles the claimant wore a Bowman combat headset covering his right ear which sounded warning alarms. In November 2020 warning notices were issued by the MoD, first limiting use of the headsets and subsequently barring their use. The medical experts, Mr Parker for the defendant and Professor Wright for the claimant, suggested three routes to medical causation, with acoustic shock coming to be the method relied on by the claimant.

The claimant returned to his regiment in March 2021. His mental health deteriorated considerably, and he was signed off work in August for mental health issues. He was diagnosed with PTSD arising from his time in Afghanistan in September 2022, and he remained at home until his discharge by a medical board in December 2022.

The defendant disputed the timing of the onset of the claimant’s tinnitus. The claimant’s position was that deterioration of his right ear was first identified at a routine hearing test in November 2019, with tinnitus recorded in March 2021. Professor Wright took the view that subliminal damage had caused a reduction or imperfection of the auditory signal reaching the brain, resulting in a perception of tinnitus by acoustic shock.

Complicated individual

In his decision, Justice Bird said of the evidence of noise exposure: “I accept Mr Bevan’s evidence on the degree and frequency of exposure. The exposure was regular, and it seems to me from the evidence that it was repetitive and broadly predictable. There were regular loud alarms and regular less intrusive alarms and there was general loud vehicle noise. There was no suggestion of any particular or unusual noise or of any day or days when things were worse than usual.”

He continued: “I am satisfied that Mr Bevan’s tinnitus came on after December 2020 and before March 2021. That is consistent with what he reported to clinicians at those times and consistent with a note in March that the onset of tinnitus was recent. I think it likely that the onset was in early 2021 as Mr Bevan told Professor Wright. That is in my judgment also broadly consistent with the account he gave to Mr Parker, that the onset was after the Ajax project.”

Considering whether the case for acoustic shock was made out, Bird J said: “Mr Parker’s firm view was that this is not an acoustic shock case. There was no defined acoustic incident from which ear symptoms commenced straight away or shortly afterwards. Even if there was, the symptoms (bilateral tinnitus) were not experienced in, and do not arise from (because there is no overwhelming tinnitus), the exposed (right) ear.”

He added: “In my judgment, Mr Parker’s analysis was compelling. Stepping back from the criteria, Mr Parker told me that Mr Bevan comes across as a ‘complicated individual’ who has suffered significant adverse life events. He noted that tinnitus can be caused (for example) by PTSD ‘regardless of acoustics’.”

Bird J concluded: “Because I have found that there was no acoustic shock and there is no suggestion that there was noise-induced hearing loss or acoustic trauma, it follows that Mr Bevan’s tinnitus (and any hearing loss) was not caused by exposure to noise whilst at GD. It follows that any psychological harm leading to non-organic hearing loss is not attributable to the negligent exposure.”

The claim was accordingly dismissed.