Updated: 12/12/2025
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) Hearing Loss Matrix is a new framework (approved in July 2024) developed to standardise settlement of military noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) claims[1]. It grew out of group litigation led by Hugh James Solicitors and was formally endorsed by the High Court on 8 July 2024[2]. The Matrix streamlines how damages are calculated (based on factors like service dates, audiology results, presence of tinnitus, etc.) to expedite settlements[1]. Crucially, however, it is not a statutory scheme and does not displace the usual Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) on legal costs[2]. This article examines in depth how the MoD Hearing Loss Matrix affects civil litigation costs for claimant firms, with relevant case law, CPR rules, real-world examples, and strategies to protect firms’ profitability. We also explain how DMD Costs – as specialists in legal costs – can help claimant firms navigate these changes (including a free first-case trial of our costs services).
In recent years, thousands of UK armed forces veterans have pursued claims against the MoD for noise-induced hearing loss and tinnitus caused by service. Until the Matrix was introduced, the MoD often relied on legal defenses to defeat or limit these claims – notably arguing no duty of care, the “Crown immunity” for pre-1987 service, strict time limitation, or that noise exposure levels were insufficient to cause harm. A turning point came with the High Court case of Barry v Ministry of Defence [2023] EWHC 459 (KB). In that case, a former Royal Marine sued for NIHL and tinnitus from exposure to explosions and gunfire during training. The MoD conceded primary negligence (admitting it failed to provide adequate hearing protection) but tried to reduce liability by alleging 30% contributory negligence – arguing the Marine should have worn earplugs more diligently. The High Court rejected any contributory fault on the claimant’s part[3], emphasizing that Mr. Barry reasonably relied on the MoD to supply proper equipment (which it failed to do). Mr Justice Johnson found the claimant’s hearing loss constituted a disability and awarded £713,716 in damages[4] – a landmark outcome that underscored the significant impact of military NIHL on a soldier’s career and earnings.
Bolstered by the Barry case, a large group litigation against the MoD gained momentum. In July 2024, the MoD reached a broad settlement agreement (the “Matrix” framework) with claimants (led by Hugh James) to avoid protracted trials[5][6]. Under this Matrix agreement, the MoD dropped several long-standing defenses that had hampered NIHL claims for decades: it acknowledged a duty of care to service members’ hearing, waived the limitation defense (for those joining the scheme by the deadline), and ceased disputing liability based on noise exposure levels[5][7]. In essence, claimants now only have to prove that they suffered hearing loss during their military service, without battling technical arguments about whether the MoD was responsible[8]. This was a groundbreaking concession by the MoD, finally recognizing hearing damage as a service-related harm deserving compensation.
The Matrix agreement currently covers all current and former personnel who served after 1987 (when Crown immunity for Armed Forces injuries was abolished by statute) and who register a NIHL claim through the Hugh James-led group by 30 January 2026[7][9]. Those who sign up in time are guaranteed that the MoD will not raise limitation (even if the hearing loss surfaced years later) and will not contest liability/duty for post-1987 service[5][10]. Notably, even those still in service can claim under the Matrix[11]. For claimants represented by other firms, the MoD has reserved the right to deny the same favorable terms outside this group litigation[12]. In practice, however, the Matrix has set a benchmark – it’s expected that after the lead cases conclude, a consistent approach will apply to the thousands of pending and future NIHL claims across the board[13][14]. The High Court trial of lead test cases began in October 2025 to determine quantum (the appropriate compensation levels) under this framework[15]. This trial, scheduled to last about 9–10 weeks[16], will likely “lock in” the compensation matrix by providing judicial guidance on valuing military hearing loss. Once the judgment is delivered (anticipated by early 2026), the Matrix’s compensation levels will have formal court approval, bringing even more certainty and encouraging the MoD to resolve remaining cases swiftly[17][14].
The Matrix provides a tariff-like structure of general damages for noise-induced hearing loss, calibrated by criteria such as the dates/era of service, the severity of hearing loss on audiograms, and presence of tinnitus[18]. In essence, it standardises the pain, suffering and loss of amenity awards, ensuring claimants with similar profiles receive similar payouts. For example, the matrix might specify a baseline award for a certain level of hearing loss (with uplift if combined with tinnitus or if younger at discharge, etc.). The idea is to eliminate lengthy arguments over the value of each case – making settlement more of a “numbers exercise” once a claimant’s military noise exposure and hearing test results are confirmed. This consistency benefits claimants by yielding higher and fairer compensation than the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) in many instances. (Under the no-fault AFCS, awards for hearing loss are based on a rigid tariff often in the low thousands of pounds[19][20], with an average lump sum of only ~£6,554 according to recent MoD data[19][21].
By contrast, civil claims under the Matrix account for individual losses like reduced civilian employment prospects and pension loss[22], and have resulted in much larger payouts – e.g. £182,250, £366,125, £550,000 in recent settlements for moderate-to-severe cases[23][24], and over £700,000 in the Barry case[25][26].) In short, the Matrix promises quicker and more generous damages to veterans than previously obtainable, finally giving due recognition to the lifelong impact of service-related hearing loss.
However – and this is critical for claimant solicitors – the Matrix explicitly concerns damages only, not legal costs. The MoD’s agreement to streamline compensation does not mean it will pay claimants’ legal costs according to a fixed schedule or without dispute. On the contrary, inter partes costs remain subject to the usual CPR rules on assessment[27][28]. The rest of this article focuses on the cost implications of the Matrix for claimant firms: how it affects costs recovery, case budgeting, and ultimately your firm’s profits on NIHL cases. We also highlight the CPR provisions (and recent rule changes) that govern these costs, and offer guidance on ensuring full recovery of your fees despite the new damages framework.
One huge advantage for claimant firms handling military NIHL claims is that these cases are exempt from the fixed recoverable costs (FRC) regime that now applies to most personal injury claims of similar value. The civil justice reforms of 1 October 2023 introduced fixed costs for many NIHL (industrial deafness) claims up to £25,000, under Section VIII of CPR Part 45 and a new Annex E to the Pre-Action Protocol for Disease Claims[29][30]. Importantly, Annex E expressly carves out “military claims” from the NIHL fixed-costs scheme[31]. In fact, any NIHL claim by a current or former member of the armed forces falls outside the NIHL FRC tables[31]. This exclusion (Annex E, para E4(a)) was a deliberate recognition of the Matrix litigation and the unique nature of military claims[32][33]. It means that even if a military hearing loss case settles for a relatively low sum (e.g. £10k–£20k), the claimant’s solicitors are not limited to the fixed fees of a fast-track NIHL case (which under the new rules might only be a few thousand pounds[34][35]). Instead, normal hourly rates and the standard basis of costs assessment apply to all MoD hearing loss claims, regardless of value[32].
For claimant firms, this is crucial: your reasonable time and work on these cases can be fully recovered (subject to detailed assessment) rather than being capped by arbitrary fixed fees. In practice, most Matrix claims will likely be multi-track or at least “intermediate” track given the complexity and the value of hearing loss over a lifetime (indeed many claims are well above £25k). But even smaller ones avoid the fixed costs straightjacket by virtue of the military exclusion. The Civil Procedure Rule Committee recognized the substantial disclosure and expert evidence involved in NIHL cases, especially military ones, which justifies leaving them in the hourly-rate regime[33]. As Annex E states, NIHL FRC only apply to non-military claims under £25k with limited defendants, etc., and specifically not to armed forces claims[31]. Thus, claimant solicitors can breathe easier that the Matrix will not harm their cost recovery – you can still bill for actual work done at appropriate grade rates, and if the MoD disputes the bill, a costs judge will assess it in the usual way on the standard basis (or indemnity basis where warranted).
Bottom line: The Matrix ≠ fixed costs. It standardises damages but does not fix legal fees[28]. This point bears repeating to any defence insinuation that a “package deal” is in place. The MoD’s own Pre-Action Protocol confirms that military NIHL cases are exempt from the NIHL fixed-cost tables[32]. Therefore, claimant firms should continue to run these cases with the expectation of recovering standard hourly costs if successful. Given the volume of claims (over 10,000 claimants are part of the current litigation[36]), this represents a significant revenue opportunity for firms – as long as you handle the costs aspect correctly. In the next sections, we outline how to secure the best costs outcome on Matrix cases, from settlement wording to tactical Part 36 offers, and how DMD Costs can assist in maximizing your recoveries.
Under the Matrix framework, settlement offers from the MoD will typically address compensation (damages) only. By design, the Matrix offers a set figure for damages based on the agreed criteria for the claimant’s hearing loss. Unless explicitly stated, such offers do not include legal costs[37][38]. It is essential that claimant solicitors do not inadvertently agree to a global settlement that includes costs, or leave ambiguity on costs, which could later prejudice your recovery. CPR 44.1 defines “costs” separately from “damages”, and the standard position is that costs follow the event (i.e. the defendant pays them in addition to agreed damages) unless the parties agree otherwise. Here are some best practices to protect your firm’s entitlement to costs when settling a Matrix NIHL claim:
• Explicitly bifurcate the settlement terms. When you accept a Matrix offer or draft a Consent Order, state the deal in two limbs – (1) Damages, and (2) Costs. For example: “Damages: £X (agreed per Matrix, plus any CRU deductible); Costs: to be paid by the Defendant on the standard basis, to be assessed if not agreed.”[39][40]. This makes it crystal clear that costs are in addition to the damages. DMD Costs recommends inserting wording that also provides for a payment on account of costs within 14 days per CPR 44.2(8)[41] – so your firm gets some cash flow while detailed costs are resolved.
• Reject any suggestion that “the matrix includes costs.” The MoD (or its legal representatives) might occasionally float a combined offer (e.g. “a global £X inclusive of costs”) or imply that the Matrix compensation was meant to cover legal fees. Do not acquiesce to this. The proper response is: “No – the Matrix covers damages only; costs remain to be dealt with under CPR.”[42]. Unless a specific costs figure is agreed alongside damages, the claimant maintains the right to standard-basis costs assessment. You are not obliged to take an all-in deal, especially if the suggested total would short-change the legal costs that a detailed bill would justify[37].
• Document the settlement carefully. In any Consent Order or Tomlin Order, include a clause that retains costs to be assessed if not agreed[43]. For example, a simple order might say: “Upon the Defendant agreeing to pay the Claimant £50,000 in damages, it is ordered that the Defendant do pay the Claimant’s costs of the action on the standard basis, to be the subject of detailed assessment if not agreed.” This ensures there is an enforceable court order for costs. If instead you are concluding by way of a Part 36 acceptance (since the MoD could make a Part 36 offer on damages), then CPR 36.13 applies – the claimant will be entitled to costs up to the date of acceptance, to be assessed if not agreed. Just be vigilant: any settlement agreement should clearly address costs; if it’s silent, you risk later argument. Generally, silence in a settlement can imply that costs are payable (since a claimant would be entitled by default as the successful party), but it’s far better to spell it out than invite a dispute.
• Be prepared to start the detailed assessment process promptly. If you have agreed damages and the defendant drags their feet on costs negotiations, do not hesitate to initiate formal cost proceedings. Under CPR 47, you can serve a Notice of Commencement (N252) with your detailed Bill of Costs as soon as damages are settled and judgment/consent order entered[44]. This puts the onus on the MoD to respond with Points of Dispute within 21 days. If they fail to respond in time, you can seek a Default Costs Certificate for the full amount billed[45]. In practice, the pressure of an active detailed assessment often forces a realistic costs offer from the defendant. DMD Costs often advises sending the bill immediately when settlement is reached – this signals that we intend to recover every pound of costs our client is due, and it avoids unnecessary delay.
• Anticipate common Points of Dispute arguments and prepare counterpoints. Based on our experience with NIHL cases, defendants may argue things like “excessive work on disclosure”, “duplicated routine correspondence”, or “hourly rates too high for this type of claim”. In military NIHL claims, these arguments can be robustly answered. Heavy disclosure is inherent to these cases – service records can be voluminous, and obtaining and reviewing decades of military audiometry, medical, and personnel files is labor-intensive but necessary. We advise keeping a disclosure index or log with page counts to evidence the scale of the task[46][47]. If the MoD says your hours are unreasonable, you can show that the sheer volume and complexity of documents justified the time spent[47]. On hourly rates, emphasize the case complexity, the skill/specialist knowledge required (e.g. understanding audiology, military acronyms), and the seniority of the fee earners handling the matter. Also note that these cases often run in the High Court (or at least multi-track in the County Court), so higher guideline rates may apply for London or specialist counsel – and the MoD itself chose to litigate in a higher forum for the group action. It can also help to document supervision chains (partner oversight on a junior’s work) to justify higher-grade involvement[48]. Ultimately, a costs judge on standard basis will allow a reasonable level of costs that is proportionate to the claim’s circumstances. Given that many Matrix cases involve life-altering injury and six-figure damages, well-substantiated costs in the tens of thousands can indeed be proportionate to the issues and value at stake. Our job as costs lawyers is to marshal the evidence (time records, disclosure extent, expert complexity, etc.) to demonstrate that to the court.
Always preserve key documents from the litigation that support your costs. For NIHL cases, that means the audiology reports, military medical board findings, correspondence evidencing any admissions, and the Matrix offer letters or approval notes. These prove the result achieved and the effort needed. Also keep expert invoices (audiologist, ENT, hearing aid specialists) and include a one-line note on each explaining why that expert or test was necessary[46][49]. The goal is to pre-empt any argument that you over-investigated. In truth, many claimants had to undergo extensive hearing testing and sometimes specialist evaluations (like tinnitus impact or inner ear damage studies) to evidence their loss – all reasonably incurred to meet the burden of proof, and thus recoverable.
Part 36 offers are a powerful tool in any civil litigation, and Matrix cases are no exception. A savvy claimant firm can use Part 36 to secure additional costs benefits** beyond the standard regime. Here’s how:
• Make a well-timed, realistic Part 36 offer on damages on behalf of your client early in the case (as soon as you have enough information on liability and quantum)[50][51]. For instance, once audiology confirms NIHL and you’ve got an idea of the Matrix range, you might serve an offer at the upper end of that range. If the MoD drags the case out and you ultimately beat your own Part 36 offer at trial, the consequences under CPR 36.17 are hugely in your favour: the claimant becomes entitled to indemnity costs from the offer’s expiry date, plus interest on costs and an additional damages sum (10% of the first £50k, etc.)[52].
• Why indemnity costs matter: On the indemnity basis, the assessment of costs is more generous – any close calls are resolved in the claimant’s favour (no “benefit of the doubt” to the paying party as on standard basis). More concretely, the proportionality rule is effectively dis-applied on indemnity assessments. The court only considers whether costs were unreasonably incurred or excessive in amount; it does not cut them down simply because the total is high relative to the damages. This means if you had to put a lot of hours into a case (e.g. preparing for a trial on quantum because the MoD under-valued the claim), you can recover every reasonable hour without a proportionality haircut. Additionally – as a bonus for cases that went through cost budgeting – any budget limits (CPR 3.18) no longer cap the recovery once indemnity basis kicks in[53][54]. In other words, exceeding your budget is not penalized if costs are on indemnity. The Court of Appeal in Broadhurst v Tan [2016] confirmed that a claimant beating a Part 36 offer escapes fixed costs and gets indemnity costs; analogously, in these Matrix cases, Part 36 can move you from a strict budgeted recovery to an uncapped indemnity recovery – a significant financial upside for the firm[52].
• MoD’s offers vs your Part 36: Often, after the Matrix, the main question is quantum. By making a firm Part 36 offer, you encourage the MoD to settle at a fair number or risk those penalties. If the defendant thinks your offer is reasonable (perhaps even a bit low to entice them), they might accept – in which case you get your costs on standard basis up to that point (still a win, and a quick resolution). If they don’t accept and you later win equal or more, you unlock indemnity basis for the later stage of the case. Either way, Part 36 puts pressure in your favour. Be mindful to not make the offer too early if key evidence (like audiologist reports or pension loss calculations) are not ready – you want the offer to be well-founded so that you will beat it if it comes to trial. In the Matrix scenario, since liability is conceded, consider making a Part 36 after you have the medical evidence of hearing loss and before costly steps like trial preparation begin; this optimizes the timeframe for indemnity costs if it goes that far[51].
• Beating the MoD’s Part 36: Conversely, if the MoD serves a Part 36 offer that your client doesn’t accept and then you fail to beat it at trial, remember the usual rule: post-expiry, the defence can seek costs from your client. However, Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) applies to these injury claims, meaning in most cases the MoD couldn’t enforce those costs beyond the damages awarded. Still, it’s another reason to carefully calibrate Part 36 decisions in high-stakes cases. In practice, the Matrix’s predictability might reduce gamesmanship with Part 36 from the MoD side – but always evaluate offers against likely trial outcomes with expert input.
In summary, strategic use of Part 36 is key to maximizing costs recovery. It can either hasten settlement (good for cash flow and avoiding unneeded work) or position you to get indemnity costs and extra awards if the case proceeds. Our team at DMD Costs always asks clients early on: “Have you considered a claimant Part 36 offer, and is it high enough that you’d be happy with it, yet low enough that MoD should accept?” Getting this right can be a game-changer in the economics of the case.
From a business perspective for claimant law firms, the MoD Hearing Loss Matrix carries several implications:
• Faster Settlements, Lower Litigation Overheads: With the Matrix removing fights over liability and limitation, many cases will settle much earlier than traditional NIHL claims. This can actually mean lower spending on disbursements and billable hours per case (no protracted court battles on whether MoD is liable). While that might sound like reduced fees, it also means firms can handle higher volume and turn cases around faster. The focus shifts to efficiently gathering evidence (audiograms, service records) and negotiating quantum. By resolving cases in, say, 12-18 months instead of years, you free capacity for more clients – offsetting the lower hours per case with more cases.
• Ensuring Work Done is Proportionate: Because costs will still be subject to standard-basis assessment and the proportionality test (unless indemnity applies), firms should manage these cases smartly. Avoid unnecessary procedural wrangling and keep contemporaneous records of why each step was needed. For instance, if you obtain two expert reports (audiologist and ENT), note why both were justified (perhaps one measures hearing loss, the other tinnitus or medical causation). If you had extensive communications to track down a veteran’s service history, log those efforts. Proportionality (CPR 44.3) can sometimes lead to trimming of high costs in lower-value cases, but given the serious nature of hearing loss and its lifelong impact, one can argue a higher reasonable spend is proportionate. The key is that nothing is seen as gratuitous – every cost item should tie to advancing the claim. In our experience, courts are receptive to the argument that “This was a test case” or “This work was vital to overcome MoD’s initial denial”, especially since historically the MoD contested these claims vigorously. Now they’ve conceded many points, but you still must do the legwork to document the injury and losses.
• Volume of Claimants and Group Coordination: With over 10,000 claimants already in the pipeline[36] (and potentially more coming forward as awareness grows[55][56]), firms might consider group case management tactics to streamline costs. Shared experts or “batch” processing of records can save time – but be careful: ultimately each case will have its own costs on assessment. You cannot bill the same hour twice. However, you can employ systems (templates for witness statements, standardized client questionnaires, etc.) to reduce duplication. The better your internal efficiency, the more profit margin when you recover inter partes costs at hourly rates. The Matrix is essentially a mass tort resolution scheme; winning in this environment requires both legal expertise and operational efficiency.
• Client Service and Retention: Don’t forget, many of these veteran clients were initially told (perhaps years ago) that they had no case (due to time limits or immunity). Now with the Matrix, they’re finally getting justice. Providing excellent service – e.g. regular updates, quick turnaround on their questions – is key. Satisfied clients not only generate positive word-of-mouth in the ex-military community (leading to referrals), but also mean smoother proceedings (they’ll promptly attend medical exams, provide documents, etc.). Happy clients also make it easier when you need to discuss things like deducting your success fee from damages (since post-Jackson the success fee isn’t recoverable from MoD). With the much larger damages at stake than AFCS, most clients will gladly pay the success fee, but it’s vital they feel the value you added. Part of that value is maximising the costs recovered from MoD – because if you recover a high proportion of your base costs from the defendant, the less shortfall the client faces out of damages or via CFA deductions.
In short, the Matrix era for hearing loss claims can be very rewarding for claimant firms, but it demands cost-conscious case handling. By resolving liability issues globally, it invites us to focus on quantum and costs. Wise firms will ensure they have the right expertise – both in-house and external (costs draftsmen, medical experts, counsel) – to navigate this efficiently.
At DMD Costs, we specialize in precisely this: turning your hard work on a case into maximum recoverable costs. Our team has been at the forefront of MoD NIHL cases and is intimately familiar with the Matrix framework and the CPR nuances that come with it. Here’s what we offer to claimant firms handling hearing loss claims:
• Complete Cost Handling, from Bill to Payment: We will prepare a detailed, CPR-compliant Bill of Costs (including electronic bills in the required Precedent format) that captures every recoverable penny of your work. We know how to map tasks to the proper phases and categories (as required by Practice Direction 47 for e-bills) – especially important given the heavy disclosure and expert evidence in NIHL claims[57]. Our bills include all necessary vouchers and are presented in a manner that justifies the work (e.g. narratives highlighting the extra work required by military records and Matrix processes).
• Strategic Guidance on Part 36 and Case Tactics: We don’t just crunch numbers; we actively advise on strategy to protect your costs. For example, we’ll recommend optimal Part 36 timing and wording so that you don’t inadvertently waive cost entitlements[58]. We help ensure consent orders and correspondence use protective wording (as discussed above) to keep damages/costs separate and secure payments on account[43]. Essentially, we act as a partner to make sure nothing in the process undermines your costs recovery.
• Negotiation and Advocacy: Once we serve the Bill, DMD takes on the negotiation with MoD’s cost lawyers. We draft robust Points of Reply to any disputes, leveraging our experience with Annex E exclusions and the reality of NIHL cases to counter the MoD’s points[59]. If needed, we handle hearings – be it an application for Default Costs Certificate, a Costs Case Management Conference, or the final Detailed Assessment hearing. Our Costs Lawyers are seasoned advocates who won’t hesitate to push for every pound your firm is owed[60]. We’re familiar with common MoD tactics and have a proven playbook to overcome them (for instance, we’ve seen arguments about “overstaffing” or “too high rates” and have templates of case law and arguments to shut those down).
• No-Fuss, Value-Adding Service – First Case FREE: We are confident that once you see what we can do, you’ll never want to handle a complex bill yourself again. That’s why we offer to draft & negotiate the Bill on your first MoD NIHL case completely free of charge[61]. This no-risk trial lets you experience our speed and success rate. We typically turn around a Bill within 5 working days[62], and our service is fully remote/paperless, serving firms across the UK. After the free trial, our pricing is simple and competitive: a flat £500 fee per case – and that covers everything** (bill preparation, all negotiations, and even settlement paperwork when costs are agreed)[63]. We don’t nickel-and-dime with hourly charges; we focus on getting you paid quickly and fully, for a fixed cost that is often a fraction of the time-value you’d spend doing it in-house. Considering that on a typical NIHL case you might recover many thousands in costs, our flat fee (or free for the first case) is an excellent investment.
• Specialist Knowledge of Military Claims: DMD Costs has developed particular expertise in military hearing loss matters, staying up-to-date with the latest developments (Matrix updates, case law, and MoD’s approach). We understand the unique evidence burdens (like reconstructing noise exposure histories for various regiments, the quirks of service medical acronyms, etc.) and we use that knowledge to justify costs that general costs draftsmen might overlook. Our familiarity with the Matrix terms and the High Court’s guidance means we can argue from a position of authority about what work was reasonable. We essentially bridge the gap between your fee-earning team and the costs judiciary, translating your case effort into the language of CPR rules and precedents to ensure maximum recovery.
In summary, DMD Costs is here to ensure that the MoD Hearing Loss Matrix boosts your firm’s profitability, not just your clients’ compensation. By entrusting us with the costs aspect, your litigators can focus on what they do best – serving clients – while we make sure you get every bit of your fees paid by the defendant. We invite you to try our service for free on your next case to see the difference we can make[61].
at DMD Costs (info@dmdcosts.co.uk or +44 7724 108 587) to get started[64]. With the Matrix in full swing and thousands of veterans seeking justice, now is the time to act – and we’re ready to help your firm succeed in this new landscape. The Matrix has leveled the playing field for claimants; let DMD Costs ensure that you recover everything you’re entitled to under the CPR – quickly, efficiently, and fully.
No. The Matrix is a negotiated framework between the MOD and claimant firms in ongoing group litigation. It’s not statutory or court-imposed but has been formally endorsed by the High Court. It provides a structured basis for quantum only – not costs.
It applies primarily to claimants who joined the Hugh James-led group action before the deadline. However, it's expected that its principles will shape offers in other MOD NIHL claims going forward.
Yes. Matrix claims are not subject to fixed recoverable costs (FRC). Full hourly-rate costs on the standard basis are recoverable, subject to assessment, under CPR 44 and PD47.
Yes, especially if the offer is made without clear separation of damages and costs. Accepting a “global” figure without costs terms could limit your recovery. Ensure any settlement preserves your right to costs.
No. Annex E of the Disease Protocol explicitly excludes military hearing loss claims from the fixed recoverable costs regime, regardless of claim value.
Key rules include:
Absolutely. Beating a well-timed claimant Part 36 offer may entitle your client to indemnity costs, interest on costs, and an uplift on damages.
They often challenge disclosure time, expert evidence costs, hourly rates, and proportionality. These can be countered with evidence of complexity and volume – especially in military service documentation.
We provide full costs drafting, bill negotiation, Part 36 strategy, settlement wording advice, and offer a free trial – your first MOD NIHL bill handled start-to-finish at no charge.
Clients must register through the approved litigation group (e.g. Hugh James) before the cut-off. For others, the Matrix may still inform valuation, but without automatic concessions on limitation or liability.
• MoD NIHL Matrix – DMD Costs Blog[2][33][40]
• High Court approval and Matrix details – DMD Costs Blog[18][28]
• Annex E (Disease Claims PAP) excerpt excluding military NIHL from FRC[31]
• Quest Online news on Matrix agreement (Simon Ellis quote, duty and limitation dropped)[5][7]
• Hugh James press release on settlements (example payouts, FOI data on AFCS)[23][19]
• Barry v MoD case discussion – Weightmans news (Barry award £713k)[25][26] and Lexology summary (no contributory negligence)[3]
• Justice4Heroes article (lead case on quantum in Oct 2025, MoD withdrew defenses)[13][65]
• DMD Costs Blog – guidance on separating costs, Part 36, etc.[66][52][42]
________________________________________
[1] [2] [18] [27] [28] [32] [33] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [66] MoD NIHL Matrix: Damages vs Costs (Updated 2025/26) - DMD Costs
[3] Barry v Ministry of Defence [2023] EWHC 49 (KB) - Lexology
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=2492eda4-d36e-4bf1-ad61-37c2cbfdc11d
[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [10] [11] [12] Breakthrough for thousands in military hearing loss claims
[9] [22] Hearing Loss And Military Service: Understanding AFCS, Civil Claims And The Matrix Agreement | Hugh James
[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [55] [56] [65] A Defining Moment for Military Hearing Loss Claims
https://justice4heroes.org/post/military-hearing-loss-high-court-case
[19] [20] [21] [23] [24] [36] Ministry Of Defence Settles Four Military Hearing Loss Claims Ahead Of Trial | Hugh James
https://www.hughjames.com/blog/ministry-of-defence-military-hearing-loss-claims-2/
[25] [26] £700,000 hearing loss award for former marine | Weightmans
https://www.weightmans.com/media-centre/news/700-000-hearing-loss-award-for-former-marine/
[29] [30] [34] [35] Fixed costs for noise induced hearing loss cases
https://www.dacbeachcroft.com/en/What-we-think/Fixed-costs-for-noise-induced-hearing-loss-cases
[31] justice.gov.uk
https://www.justice.gov.uk/documents/pap-update-may-2023.pdf