30 May 2026

Infantry hearing loss claim: small arms, GPMG, and compensation for foot soldiers

TL;DR

An infantry hearing loss claim is a civil claim against the MoD for noise-induced hearing loss or tinnitus caused by weapons noise during service in the British Army. All roles that handle or work close to small arms, support weapons, and mortars are covered.
Peer-reviewed research from the University of Southampton found that the SA80/L85A2 generates a peak of 161 dB(C) at 0.3m. Under the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005, anyone within 20 metres of a firing position must wear hearing protection.
Removing protection to hear fire orders during section attacks is a documented breach pattern that does not defeat a claim: the MoD's duty extended to providing protection compatible with operational communication demands.
Abbott v Ministry of Defence [2026] EWHC 941 (KB) established the rM-NIHL method, removing the 4kHz notch requirement. Matrix Agreement deadline: 31 July 2026.

Infantry soldiers fire or work alongside small arms, support weapons, and mortars throughout training and operations. The noise generated by those weapons exceeds the statutory threshold above which the MoD was required to take action, often by a considerable margin. Where the protection provided was inadequate for the environment, or where its use was not enforced consistently across all firing activity, an infantry hearing loss claim can be brought against the Ministry of Defence on a no-win, no-fee basis.

What is an infantry hearing loss claim?

An infantry hearing loss claim is a civil negligence claim against the Ministry of Defence for noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL), tinnitus, or both, caused by exposure to weapons noise during service in the British Army's infantry regiments and battalions.

The claim rests on the MoD having breached its duty of care by failing to provide hearing protection suitable for the noise levels generated by infantry weapons, failing to enforce consistent use across all firing activities, or failing to reduce noise exposure at source where reasonably practicable. All roles with proximity to firing are covered. Riflemen, section commanders, platoon and company commanders, support weapon crews, snipers, mortar fire controllers, and armoured infantry crews serving in Warrior or other infantry fighting vehicles each have exposure histories that can support a claim, depending on the weapons systems involved and the frequency and duration of firing activity.

The Crown Proceedings Act (Armed Forces) 1987 enables civil claims against the MoD for injuries sustained on or after 15 May 1987. The service trades page on this site covers the full range of roles assessed in military hearing loss claims.

Infantry weapons and noise exposure

Infantry service involves a range of weapons whose noise output either approaches or substantially exceeds the peak threshold above which no unprotected exposure should occur.

The SA80/L85A2 is the primary weapon of the British infantry. Research published by the University of Southampton found that the SA80 generates a peak sound pressure level of 161 dB(C) measured 0.3 metres to the side of the rifle. The noise at work regulations (Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005) set the peak limit above which hearing protection is mandatory at 137 dB. The Southampton research established that anyone within approximately 20 metres of a firing SA80 is exposed to noise above that limit. On a range or during a section attack, where multiple rifles are firing simultaneously, that zone extends to cover all members of the section.

The L7A2 General Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG) generates comparable impulse noise in both the sustained-fire and light-role configurations. Mortar crews operating the 51mm light mortar and the 81mm medium mortar are exposed to elevated peak levels at each firing. The Underslung Grenade Launcher (UGL), used in conjunction with the SA80, and the L96A1 and L115A3 sniper rifles each produce muzzle noise that exceeds the regulatory threshold at operator and adjacent positions.

Infantry training incorporates section attacks, platoon attacks, fire and manoeuvre drills, and live-fire battle runs where multiple weapon types fire simultaneously. During sustained fire exercises and deliberate attack phases, the cumulative exposure over a training day can be substantial. Operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, and Northern Ireland added operational firing to the range exposure accumulated during pre-deployment training. Armoured infantry serving in Warrior IFVs faced an additional noise source in the 30mm Rarden cannon and the vehicle's diesel engine in the enclosed hull.

Why was hearing protection often inadequate for infantry soldiers?

The principal failure in infantry hearing protection was not always the absence of earplugs but the structural incompatibility between wearing protection and performing the infantry role.

Section attacks and fire and manoeuvre drills depend on immediate verbal communication between section members and between soldiers and their commanders. Fire orders, target indication, and casualty reports are all given by voice. Standard earplugs attenuate these communications to the point where they are difficult or impossible to hear, creating a choice between wearing protection and maintaining situational awareness. In practice, soldiers frequently removed or loosened earplugs immediately before and during firing phases to remain responsive to commands. During those phases, they were exposed at full intensity to weapons firing at close range.

The MoD's duty under the noise at work regulations was to address this incompatibility, not to leave it to individual soldiers to manage. Level-dependent hearing protection, which attenuates loud impulse noise while allowing normal speech to pass through, exists and was available during the period covered by most claims. Where the MoD issued conventional foam earplugs to infantry units and treated the protection obligation as discharged, without assessing whether that protection was compatible with the communication demands of live firing, the selection obligation was not met.

Beyond selection, the MoD was required to enforce consistent wearing throughout all noise-hazardous activities. An AWH case study records a £40,000 settlement for a veteran whose claim succeeded in part because evidence showed that wearing protection was not closely monitored or enforced during live firing exercises in the 1980s and 1990s, and that access to earplugs was inconsistent across firing positions. The claim succeeded not because protection was never issued but because its use was not properly managed.

What the MoD's hearing protection duty required

The noise at work regulations imposed statutory obligations from 6 April 2006. Before that date, the MoD's duty arose under the common law of negligence, applicable from 15 May 1987 under the Crown Proceedings Act.

Under the regulations, the MoD was required to assess noise levels for each weapon and work environment, reduce noise at source where reasonably practicable, and provide hearing protection specifically matched to the residual exposure. That selection obligation required the MoD to choose protection suited not only to the peak levels generated by the weapon but also to the practical demands of the role: including communication requirements, the frequency of removal, and whether the protection remained effective after repeated fitting and removal cycles during a training day.

The MoD was also required to train personnel in the correct fitting and use of the protection provided. Poorly fitted earplugs provide substantially less attenuation than their rated values. Where training in correct insertion technique was absent or inadequate, the effective protection received by infantry soldiers was lower than the manufacturer's specification. Per Alma Law, failing to supply adequate PPE, failing to enforce its use, and failing to provide sufficient training in fitting are the three most commonly documented breach categories in successful military NIHL claims.

What changed after Abbott v Ministry of Defence?

Abbott and Others v Ministry of Defence [2026] EWHC 941 (KB), handed down 24 April 2026, changed the diagnostic methodology for all military NIHL claims. Mr Justice Garnham accepted the rM-NIHL method developed by Professor Moore, rejecting the CLB method previously preferred by the MoD.

The Abbott judgment established that military impulse noise, of the kind generated by small arms and support weapons, commonly affects hearing at the 8kHz frequency and can erase or flatten the 4kHz notch that the CLB method required. Under rM-NIHL, a diagnosis of noise-induced hearing loss is not excluded by the absence of a 4kHz dip on the audiogram. For infantry veterans assessed under CLB and told their audiogram showed no compensable NIHL, a reassessment under the rM-NIHL framework is worth pursuing. The judgment also confirmed that tinnitus claims are not subject to a rigid temporal cut-off between noise exposure and symptom onset.

How much does an infantry hearing loss claim pay?

An infantry hearing loss claim's general damages are assessed against the Judicial College Guidelines. The 17th edition (2024) brackets, as published on the site's compensation amounts page, are:

Condition	JCG 17th edition range
Slight tinnitus, no NIHL	£7,910 to £14,140
Mild tinnitus with mild NIHL	£14,140 to £17,330
Moderate tinnitus or NIHL, or one severe	£17,330 to £34,620
Severe tinnitus and severe NIHL	£34,620 to £52,420

The 18th edition of the Judicial College Guidelines, published in April 2026, carries an uplift across these categories. Confirm current figures with a specialist before relying on them for any individual estimate.

The AWH £40,000 settlement referenced above illustrates where a claim with documented enforcement failures can sit within the range. Harris Fowler has published a summary of recent MoD hearing loss settlements that gives further context for the range of outcomes achieved across claim types. Individual results depend on the severity of the audiological findings, the length and intensity of noise exposure, and the specific breach established.

What special damages can you recover?

Special damages in an infantry hearing loss claim are assessed individually and can add considerably to the general damages figure.

The main heads are: private hearing aids replaced every four to five years at current private rates; loss of earnings where hearing damage caused early medical discharge or prevented progression to roles that required a medical category the veteran could no longer hold; pension losses from shortened service; and tinnitus counselling and sound therapy costs, both past and future. Where a long infantry career was curtailed by hearing damage and the veteran had reasonable prospects of further promotion or extension, the earnings component can exceed the general damages figure. Under a Conditional Fee Agreement, the 25% success fee cap applies only to general damages and past losses: all future losses are paid in full and sit outside the cap.

How long do you have to make an infantry loss claim?

The limitation period is three years from the date of knowledge under section 14 of the Limitation Act 1980. The date of knowledge is when you first knew your hearing damage was significant and attributable to your infantry service. It is not the date of discharge.

Many veterans who served in the infantry connect hearing difficulties to service years or decades after leaving, often after a GP notes a noise-induced audiogram pattern, after a family member raises repeated concerns, or after reading about the claims brought by fellow veterans. Where that connection was made within the last three years, the claim may still be in time regardless of when service ended.

The Veterans Welfare Group explains how the Matrix Agreement deadline extension to 31 July 2026 removes the limitation risk for veterans who register within the scheme before that date. The MoD's waiver of time-limit arguments applies to all claims submitted within the scheme. The eligibility criteria page on this site lets you check your position at no cost and without obligation.

Starting your infantry hearing loss claim

If you served in the infantry and have hearing loss or tinnitus you believe is connected to weapons noise during service, a free eligibility assessment is the first step.

The process begins with a confidential discussion with a specialist. An independent audiologist carries out a hearing assessment under the rM-NIHL framework. Service records are obtained. A letter of claim is sent to the MoD under the pre-action protocol. Most claims settle without going to court. You pay nothing upfront and nothing if your claim is unsuccessful. Starting before 31 July 2026 preserves the option of registering within the Matrix Agreement scheme. Begin with a free assessment online or by telephone.

This page provides general information about infantry hearing loss claims. It is not legal advice. Whether a specific claim is in time or eligible depends on individual service records and medical evidence. Speak to a solicitor regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.