What Is the MOD Military Hearing Loss Matrix?

The Military Hearing Loss Matrix, often shortened simply to the Matrix, is an agreement used within the current civil litigation concerning noise-induced hearing loss in members and former members of the UK Armed Forces.

It is not the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme. It is not the War Pension Scheme. It is not an automatic government compensation payment.

And joining the Matrix does not mean the Ministry of Defence has accepted that military service caused your hearing loss or tinnitus.

The Matrix arose from the large-scale Military Deafness Litigation against the Ministry of Defence. In Abbott v Ministry of Defence [2026] EWHC 941 (KB), the High Court recorded that the litigation had grown to 10,440 claims.

In spring 2024, the MOD and a large group of claimants reached an agreement dealing with a number of recurring legal issues. That agreement became known as the Matrix. Its effect was to remove or structure several disputes that would otherwise have needed to be fought repeatedly in individual cases. In return, damages are subject to a structured Matrix adjustment.

But two major questions remain individual: did military noise actually cause this person's hearing condition? And if so, what compensation is appropriate? Those are the questions of causation and quantum.

This guide explains what the Matrix does, what it does not do, the current 31 January 2027 registration deadline and how it differs from AFCS and the War Pension Scheme.

The short version

• The Matrix is part of the civil Military Deafness Litigation against the MOD.
• It is not AFCS or the War Pension Scheme.
• The litigation began in 2017 and had reached 10,440 claims by the Abbott judgment in April 2026.
• The original Matrix agreement was reached in spring 2024.
• It dealt with recurring issues: Crown immunity, combat immunity, breach of duty, contributory negligence, apportionment, Noise Immission Level and limitation.
• In return, successful damages are subject to a structured Matrix adjustment.
• The Matrix did not resolve individual medical causation.
• It did not determine the value of every claimant's case.
• Abbott says that after the Matrix, the principal remaining issues were causation and quantum.
• Joining the Matrix Register does not mean a claim will ultimately succeed.
• Current Royal British Legion guidance states that Matrix hearing-loss claims must be lodged by 23:59 on 31 January 2027.
• That is a deadline for the Matrix arrangements, not a universal deadline for every military hearing-loss route.
• AFCS and WPS have separate rules and separate time limits.
• RBL currently says people who served in HM Forces on or after 15 May 1987, or who are still serving, may potentially have a civil military hearing-loss claim.
• A previous AFCS or WPS award or rejection does not necessarily prevent consideration of the civil Matrix route.
• The exact effect of the Matrix in an individual case should be considered by a solicitor involved in the current litigation arrangements.

Where did the Matrix come from?

The current military hearing litigation did not begin with the Matrix.

The High Court records that the first claim form in the litigation was issued in August 2017 by Adrian Turner and 209 other claimants. A much larger claim followed in 2021, in the name of David Abbott and 3,449 others. Other firms subsequently brought similar military hearing-loss claims.

By the time of the substantive Abbott judgment in April 2026, the High Court recorded the scale of it.

The litigation therefore developed into a very large body of cases involving recurring legal, medical and evidential questions.

When was the Matrix agreed, and what did it deal with?

The mechanism used to implement that agreement was called the Matrix, and it was annexed to a court order made in July 2024.

Each of the issues it dealt with could otherwise create substantial legal disputes:

• Crown immunity;
• combat immunity;
• breach of duty;
• contributory negligence;
• apportionment;
• Noise Immission Level;
• limitation.

The Matrix was designed to allow claims within the arrangements to move forward without litigating those same recurring questions from the beginning in every case.

What do those seven issues mean?

Crown immunity. Historic Crown immunity can prevent ordinary civil claims based on relevant military acts or omissions before 15 May 1987. The Matrix provides agreed treatment of that issue within the relevant litigation arrangements — which does not mean the underlying historic law has disappeared. Our guide to why 15 May 1987 matters explains the statutory rule separately.

Combat immunity. Different from historic Crown immunity: it concerns the limits on negligence liability for acts and decisions sufficiently connected with actual combat or warlike operations. The Matrix deals with it as one of the recurring liability issues, so an individual Matrix claim does not necessarily have to fight the full generic argument again from the beginning.

Breach of duty. A civil negligence claim would ordinarily need to establish that the defendant failed to meet the required standard of care — which for hearing loss can involve excessive noise, hearing conservation, hearing protection, risk assessment, monitoring, training and exposure controls. The Matrix provides agreed treatment of breach for claims within its arrangements. This is one reason Matrix claims differ from an ordinary military personal-injury case starting from scratch.

Contributory negligence. Whether the claimant's own conduct should reduce the damages recovered. The Matrix provides structured treatment rather than requiring it to be litigated independently in every participating case.

Apportionment. Some veterans have experienced significant noise in more than one setting — military service, later construction work, engineering, manufacturing, recreational shooting. Apportionment concerns how responsibility may need to be divided between different causes or periods of exposure. Individual medical causation can still remain important.

Noise Immission Level. A way of considering cumulative noise exposure. In ordinary NIHL litigation, detailed disputes arise over how loud the noise was, how long and how often somebody was exposed, and the cumulative effect. The Matrix deals with this recurring exposure issue — but that does not mean every claimant is automatically deemed to have suffered NIHL. Exposure capable of causing injury and actual medical causation are not the same question.

Limitation. Military hearing loss can be particularly complicated because exposure may have occurred many years ago, hearing loss may develop gradually, and the claimant may only discover the significance much later. Current RBL guidance states that under the Matrix arrangements the MOD will not raise the usual limitation defence, alongside Crown and combat immunity.

What did the Matrix leave unresolved?

This is the most important part of the page.

Abbott records that the Matrix left causation and quantum in issue.

Causation. The claimant still needs appropriate evidence that military noise caused the hearing condition being claimed — military NIHL, tinnitus, or another relevant auditory injury.

Quantum. If injury is established, the value of the claim still needs to be assessed: severity of hearing loss, tinnitus, effect on communication, hearing aids, employment disadvantage, future losses and other individual consequences.

So the Matrix does not convert a hearing complaint into an automatic payment.

Does joining the Matrix mean the MOD admits I have NIHL?

No. This is a critical distinction, and Abbott provides a direct example.

In the test case of Jack Craggs, liability issues were dealt with subject to the Matrix adjustment — but the MOD made no admission of causation.

The Court ultimately concluded that Mr Craggs had not established that his current hearing loss was caused by military NIHL. It separately found that his tinnitus had been caused by military noise.

Does the Matrix guarantee compensation?

No.

Joining the Matrix Register does not determine whether the claim will ultimately succeed. A claimant can still fail to establish the necessary medical causation, and there can be disputes about the extent of the injury and the value of the claim.

The Matrix removes or structures important legal obstacles. It does not abolish the need for evidence.

How does the Matrix affect damages?

Abbott records that the agreement leaves the claimant subject to a structured discount on damages. RBL guidance also describes the Matrix as using a formula involving matters such as dates of service and the amount of compensation.

The two test claimants in Abbott illustrate that the adjustment is not one fixed number. Mr Lambie's damages fell "to be reduced by 10% to reflect the application of the Matrix"; in Mr Craggs' case liability was admitted "subject to a 25% discount on application of the Matrix agreement".

The discount exists because the Matrix is a compromise: it gives claimants within the arrangements important advantages by resolving or structuring recurring liability and limitation disputes, and in return damages are adjusted. Whether joining the current arrangements is appropriate for a particular individual is a legal question for the solicitor advising them.

It should not be confused with a simple tariff saying "X dB hearing loss = £Y". The individual value of a civil claim still depends on evidence. Two claimants can have different hearing injuries, tinnitus, employment effects, hearing-aid needs and financial losses — and therefore different damages.

What is the current Matrix deadline?

That is the current published deadline as at 25 August 2026. Because this is an actively changing litigation arrangement, the date should always be checked against a current source rather than an old advertisement.

Is 31 January 2027 the deadline for every military hearing-loss claim?

No. It is the deadline currently stated for the Matrix arrangements. That is not the same thing as the ordinary civil limitation period, an AFCS deadline or a WPS deadline.

For civil claims outside the Matrix, ordinary limitation rules may need to be considered.

For AFCS, there is generally a seven-year rule, subject to important exceptions.

For WPS, current guidance says there is no claim time limit.

Our guides to civil claim vs AFCS vs War Pension and military hearing loss time limits explain those routes and clocks separately.

What happens if somebody misses the Matrix deadline?

A website should not tell somebody automatically that "you have no claim at all".

Missing the current Matrix deadline and having no possible legal route are not necessarily the same proposition. The effect can depend on the individual claim, ordinary limitation, whether another civil route remains possible, AFCS, WPS, and any future orders or agreements.

Who may potentially be able to use the Matrix route?

That is an initial guide, not a complete eligibility decision. Relevant matters can still include dates of service, dates of exposure, medical evidence, hearing loss, tinnitus, causation and the current Matrix terms.

Someone whose service spans 15 May 1987 may need the pre- and post-1987 periods considered separately.

One day of service after 15 May 1987 does not guarantee eligibility. The underlying history matters, and the key legal and medical questions include when the relevant harmful exposure occurred. A person who served for years before 1987 and only briefly afterwards may have a very different case from somebody with substantial harmful exposure after the statutory change.

Does the Matrix only apply to Hugh James clients?

The original Matrix described in Abbott was reached between the Ministry of Defence and the Hugh James claimant group. That is the historical origin of the agreement.

Since then, current public guidance refers more broadly to a Matrix Register and to claimants joining the current Military Deafness Litigation arrangements.

Do I need a solicitor, and how do I choose one?

The Matrix is part of civil litigation. RBL currently recommends contacting a solicitor experienced in personal-injury litigation, and refers veterans without a preferred firm to its Solicitors Group or another solicitor of their choice.

This differs from AFCS and WPS, where a veteran can apply directly to the government scheme.

You do not have to use the solicitor who first contacted you. RBL itself warns that a number of new firms have entered the area and recommends taking care when selecting a solicitor.

Questions worth asking can include:

• Does the firm actually handle Military Deafness Litigation?
• Who will conduct the case?
• What experience does the firm have with Abbott and the Matrix?
• What funding agreement is being offered?
• What deductions may be made from compensation?
• What happens if the claim does not succeed?
• Is the firm itself acting, or merely passing the enquiry elsewhere?

Is RemedyBridge part of the Matrix?

RemedyBridge is not the Ministry of Defence, the Royal British Legion, Veterans UK or a law firm. It does not decide Matrix eligibility and cannot enter a claimant onto the Matrix Register itself.

Where somebody submits details about a potential civil military hearing-loss claim, those details may be passed to an appropriate legal provider in accordance with the site's stated process. The solicitor must determine the legal route and advise the individual.

What if I already had an AFCS award or a War Pension?

A previous award does not necessarily prevent consideration of the civil Matrix route.

However, compensation cannot normally be recovered twice for the same injury or loss, so previous awards need to be disclosed and considered.

The same applies to a rejection. AFCS and civil negligence claims use different legal frameworks, so an AFCS or WPS refusal does not automatically determine the civil route. A rejection may still be relevant evidence — it simply is not automatically decisive.

Is the Matrix the same as AFCS or the War Pension Scheme?

No, and the difference is fundamental.

The Matrix is part of civil litigation against the MOD, within a negligence framework.

AFCS is a government statutory no-fault compensation scheme and does not require proof of negligence.

WPS is a statutory no-fault scheme for qualifying disablement arising from service before 6 April 2005.

Depending on the circumstances somebody may have more than one route potentially relevant — but overlapping compensation may be adjusted so the same injury or financial loss is not paid twice.

Does the Matrix use the same hearing test as WPS?

No. This is another common source of confusion.

WPS applies its own statutory disablement rules. Civil military hearing litigation uses medical and expert evidence to determine causation and injury, and Abbott is now highly important to that civil medical assessment — including its preference for rM-NIHL as a diagnostic method, subject to the limitations discussed in the judgment and later research.

So somebody should not take a WPS percentage assessment and assume it automatically determines their civil Matrix claim.

Does joining the Matrix mean I need a new audiogram?

That depends on the evidence already available. A civil hearing-loss investigation may need:

• historic military audiograms;
• current diagnostic audiometry;
• ENT evidence;
• tinnitus history;
• service records;
• noise-exposure history.

Abbott treats modern properly conducted diagnostic audiometry as the best audiometric evidence where available, while consistent historic military audiograms can also be valuable. Our guides to how to read a military audiogram and military medical records cover both.

If your old Army hearing tests were recorded as normal, that evidence matters — but it does not automatically mean the claim succeeds or fails. A medical expert may need to consider when the test occurred, later exposure, later tests, which frequencies were recorded, age, civilian noise and alternative causes. The Matrix does not override medical evidence.

What if I only have tinnitus?

Do not assume either that "tinnitus automatically qualifies" or that "without NIHL there can be no civil claim".

Abbott is particularly important here. The Court rejected military NIHL causation in Mr Craggs' case but separately found that his tinnitus had been caused by military noise.

The viability of an individual tinnitus claim still depends on the legal and medical evidence and the applicable litigation arrangements. Our guide to tinnitus and military service explains the condition.

What did Abbott change for Matrix claims?

Abbott dealt with the major issues the Matrix deliberately left open, including:

• diagnosis of military NIHL;
• rM-NIHL;
• historic military audiograms;
• tinnitus;
• post-exposure progression;
• quantification of hearing loss;
• hearing aids;
• general damages;
• employment loss.

So the sequence matters: the Matrix resolved or structured recurring liability issues, and then Abbott gave guidance on the major causation and quantum questions left behind. The two should be read together, not treated as competing systems. Our guide to what Abbott decided covers the judgment.

Does the Matrix guarantee a quick settlement, or cap legal costs?

No to both.

The Matrix should streamline issues that might otherwise require litigation, but a claim can still require substantial work involving service records, medical records, audiograms, expert evidence, tinnitus evidence, hearing aids, employment evidence, valuation and negotiation. The complexity of the individual case does not disappear because generic liability issues have been agreed.

On costs, the Matrix concerns the civil claim and structured damages arrangements. It should not automatically be treated as a fixed cap on the claimant's recoverable legal costs — costs are a separate issue governed by the settlement wording, the applicable Civil Procedure Rules and the work reasonably undertaken.

What happens after a claim joins the Matrix arrangements?

The precise procedure depends on the litigation and the solicitor handling the claim. In broad terms, the remaining work can involve establishing:

1. the claimant's service and exposure history;
2. the medical condition;
3. whether military noise caused it;
4. the amount of injury attributable to service;
5. the value of the resulting loss;
6. application of the relevant Matrix terms;
7. settlement or further proceedings where required.

The Matrix reduces the number of issues. It does not remove the individual investigation.

Can the Matrix deadline be extended again?

It has already been extended before. But nobody should assume another extension will happen.

There is no sensible reason to deliberately wait until the deadline before asking for advice. Obtaining records, medical evidence and legal advice can take time.

Frequently asked questions