The MOD NIHL matrix is the Ministry of Defence’s standardised framework for valuing military noise-induced hearing loss claims. It maps audiology data and service history to fixed settlement bands. Great for liability/quantum clarity—tricky for costs. Recovery turns on (1) proving work was necessary despite the matrix, (2) demonstrating proportionality, and (3) presenting a bill that anticipates every predictable Point of Dispute. Below is the practical playbook we use at DMD Costs to get you paid—free first bill to settlement; £500 all-in thereafter.
________________________________________
1. MOD NIHL matrix in one minute
2. How the matrix affects your legal spend
3. Costs strategy: 9 steps to maximise recovery
4. Bill-drafting checklist (what we include)
5. Frequent Points of Dispute—and how we reply
6. Proportionality, Part 36 and interim payments
7. FAQs
8. Work with DMD Costs
________________________________________
The matrix is an MoD/Defence-specific valuation grid for noise-induced hearing loss claims by serving personnel and veterans. In practice it:
• Standardises causation and quantum bands using audiograms, service role, and exposure history.
• Encourages early, banded offers to reduce friction.
• Shortens argument on valuation, but doesn’t eliminate liability disputes (exposure, service records, medical causation, apportionment).
Implication for costs: defendants argue “matrix makes litigation simple”, so your bill must prove why time spent was still necessary and reasonable given the banding.
________________________________________
• Front-loaded evidence: audiology, service records, specialist ENT/Audio opinions remain decisive.
• Negotiation cycles compress: fewer rounds on quantum; more scrutiny on the necessity of tasks.
• Budget pinch: paying parties push proportionality hard—“band X case doesn’t justify Y hours”.
Translation for recovery: You’ll only recover the time you can evidence as adding value within a matrix environment.
________________________________________
1. Matrix-aware case theory
Frame your file from day one: which matrix band is realistic and what evidence moves you up or avoids dilution? Time entries should reflect this purpose.
2. Evidence discipline
o Audiology: ensure quality, calibration notes, and repeat tests where indicated.
o ENT reports: targeted instructions (service noise profile, asymmetry, non-occupational confounders).
o Avoid scatter-gun letters of instruction—trim = recoverable.
3. Record causation logic in the file
Short notes explaining why further opinion/records were needed (e.g., disputed exposure window; need for service medical board papers). These are gold when defending reasonableness.
4. Negotiate like a matrix native
Anchor offers to the band with objective deltas (audiometric shift; tinnitus grade). Costs entries should show band-aware negotiations, not generic haggling.
5. Use structured time narratives
Replace “perusing” with work-type + objective:
o “Review audiogram & map to probable band (15m)”
o “Draft targeted ENT Qs re asymmetry (0.4h)”
This language survives summary reductions.
6. Keep admin visibly cheap
Bundle/index/service to a junior with short, clear entries. It protects proportionality and blunts “mechanical task” attacks.
7. Part 36 timing
Make an early, well-pitched P36 aligned to the matrix band to unlock CPR 36 benefits on costs/interest if beaten. Record the rationale in the file.
8. Interim payments
Ask early where liability is accepted or where a banded quantum is predictable. It de-risks WIP and shows proportional case conduct.
9. Close the loop after settlement
Minute why the agreed band/figure was optimal. It supports the narrative at assessment if challenged later.
________________________________________
When we prepare your MOD NIHL bill of costs, we build in matrix-specific signals:
• Front sheet signposting: “Matrix band X anticipated; work focussed on [e.g., exposure gap, tinnitus severity, asymmetry].”
• Work-type taxonomy grouped by Objective (Evidence/Valuation/Negotiation/Compliance), not just chronological sprawl.
• Supervisor lines to show solicitor control (post-Mazur & Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys risk).
• Short justifications embedded where tasks might look high for a banded case: “additional review due to conflicting audiometry.”
• Proportionality statement linking band to the value at risk and why time was necessary to achieve the outcome.
• Attachments index (audiology, ENT Qs, service records list) to reduce “proof of necessity” argy-bargy.
________________________________________
1) “Matrix makes this simple—time is excessive.”
Reply: The matrix narrows valuation; it does not resolve causation/exposure or tinnitus grading. Point to specific evidence tasks that moved the claim into the correct band.
2) “Duplicative medical time.”
Reply: Show targeted instructions and why second opinion/retest was necessary (calibration doubts, asymmetry, MoD records inconsistency).
3) “Negotiation time disproportionate to a banded case.”
Reply: Evidence that negotiation cycles were matrix-anchored (movement within/between bands, tinnitus uplift) and delivered a better-than-opening differential.
4) “Admin/mechanical tasks at fee-earner rate.”
Reply: Demonstrate junior allocation and reduced rates; concede tiny trims tactically while protecting the high-value items.
5) “Unqualified staff conducted litigation.”
Reply: After Mazur & Stuart, show solicitor control: approvals on pleadings, strategy notes, responsibility lines in the bill narrative.
________________________________________
• Proportionality framing: tie hours to value at risk within the expected band; mention any aggravating features (tinnitus, service hazard, exposure length).
• Part 36 leverage: an early, well-evidenced P36 that’s later beaten triggers 36.17 enhancements—transformative on net recovery.
• Interims: where causation is largely accepted and the matrix gives a predictable bandwidth, press for interim damages and/or costs to keep the matter proportionate and cash-positive.
________________________________________
Is the matrix “fixed damages”?
No. It’s a framework. Evidence can justify movement within or occasionally outside the initial banding assumptions.
Do I still need ENT/audiology if the band looks obvious?
Yes. Quality evidence secures the band and defends your costs. Weak audiology = weak recovery.
What’s the single biggest costs mistake we see?
Vague narratives that don’t show matrix-aware purpose. If a task doesn’t read as moving the band/settlement, it invites a cut.
Can we recover for second audiology tests?
Often yes—if you record a clear reason (calibration concern, inconsistent results, specialist tinnitus assessment).
________________________________________
• Free first bill to settlement (trial).
• £500* fixed fee thereafter (drafting + negotiations + settlement paperwork).
• 5-day SLA. Costs Lawyer-led team. UK-wide, paperless.
Send your first MOD NIHL file: info@dmdcosts.co.uk | +44 7724 108 587
• MOD NIHL Costs (service page)