Why 15 May 1987 Matters in Military Hearing-Loss Claims

If you are investigating hearing loss caused by military noise exposure, 15 May 1987 is one of the most important dates in the claim.

It is the date Parliament removed the historic Crown immunity that had prevented members of the Armed Forces from bringing many civil claims against the Ministry of Defence for injuries caused during service. The change was made by the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987.

But Parliament did not make the change retrospective.

Section 1 of the 1987 Act preserved the old immunity for injury suffered in consequence of an act or omission committed before 15 May 1987.

That means, in broad terms:

• negligent noise exposure before 15 May 1987 remains protected by the old Crown immunity;
• negligent acts or omissions from 15 May 1987 onwards can potentially form part of a civil claim, subject to the other requirements of the claim; and
• if your military service crossed the date, the answer is not simply "yes" or "no" — the periods before and after 15 May 1987 may have to be treated differently.

The date is therefore a legal liability boundary. It is not a rule saying hearing damage before 15 May 1987 did not occur.

What changed on 15 May 1987?

The starting point is section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947.

For decades, section 10 gave the Crown substantial immunity from tort claims involving members of the Armed Forces.

In practical terms, service personnel injured as a consequence of qualifying acts or omissions during service could be prevented from suing the Crown for damages in the ordinary way.

That position changed when Parliament passed the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987, which received Royal Assent on 15 May 1987.

Section 1 provided that section 10 of the 1947 Act would cease to have effect, subject to an important exception.

That date was 15 May 1987.

Why wasn't the change made retrospective?

Parliament chose not to reopen civil liability for all historic service injuries.

That choice has been challenged and criticised over the years because it can produce a very stark result. Two veterans can suffer similar injuries from similar military activity but face different civil-law positions depending on when the negligent act or omission occurred.

The House of Lords considered the issue in Matthews v Ministry of Defence [2003] UKHL 4.

Mr Matthews had been exposed to asbestos during Royal Navy service many years before 1987.

Because the relevant exposure occurred before 15 May 1987, the old statutory immunity continued to apply. The court recognised that the result could appear harsh, particularly where an illness only became apparent many years later — the Lords echoed the Court of Appeal's observation that it "does seem harsh that servicemen who are now discovering that they have sustained injury as a result of tortious conduct prior to 1987 should be treated so much less favourably".

But the statutory boundary remained.

The Government has maintained the same position since.

Is 15 May 1987 the date your hearing loss had to start?

No.

This is one of the most important misunderstandings to avoid.

15 May 1987 is not:

• the date on which military noise first became dangerous;
• the date on which hearing loss became medically recognised;
• the date on which you had to notice tinnitus;
• the date of a particular audiogram threshold; or
• a rule saying hearing damage before then is medically irrelevant.

It is a civil-liability date created by the repeal of Crown immunity.

The statutory question concerns the timing of the relevant act or omission that caused the injury.

That can be very different from the date on which the injury was diagnosed, first noticed, recorded in a medical file, or investigated decades later.

What if all of my noisy military service was before 15 May 1987?

If the acts or omissions said to have caused the injury all occurred before 15 May 1987, Crown immunity is a fundamental obstacle to an ordinary civil negligence claim against the MOD.

This is not the same thing as saying "you cannot prove military hearing loss".

You may have:

• service audiograms;
• evidence of extremely high noise exposure;
• tinnitus;
• a later civilian audiogram;
• medical evidence supporting military NIHL; and
• a clear history of exposure.

The Government's own explanation of the pre-1987 position has repeatedly made this distinction, and the same statutory boundary is relevant when considering other service-related tort claims, including military hearing-loss claims.

What if I served before and after 15 May 1987?

This is different.

Do not assume: "I joined the Armed Forces before 1987, so I cannot have a civil claim."

The Act does not simply ask when you enlisted. It preserves immunity in relation to injury caused by acts or omissions committed before the statutory date.

So consider someone who served 1980 to 1995 and was exposed to significant military noise throughout that period.

That service contains two legally different periods.

Before 15 May 1987. The historic Crown immunity remains relevant.

From 15 May 1987 onwards. The blanket statutory immunity removed by the 1987 Act no longer applies in the same way.

A civil claim may therefore need to identify:

• what noise exposure occurred after the cut-off;
• what protective measures existed;
• what the MOD knew or ought to have known;
• what hearing damage is attributable to the legally recoverable period; and
• how the earlier and later exposure should be treated when analysing causation and loss.

That is why a veteran whose career crosses 15 May 1987 should not be treated in the same way as somebody whose service ended completely before that date.

Example: service from 1978 to 1992

Imagine a soldier served from 1978 until 1992.

Their noise history included weapons training, live firing, exercises, armoured vehicles and repeated exposure to impulse noise.

A simplistic analysis might say: "They joined before 1987, so there is no claim."

That would miss the point.

The relevant questions include what happened during the service after 15 May 1987.

The pre-1987 period remains subject to the historic statutory immunity. But the soldier also served for nearly five years after the immunity was removed, and those post-1987 acts and omissions require separate consideration.

Example: service ended in 1985

Now imagine another veteran whose service ran from 1968 to 1985.

All of the alleged military noise exposure ended before the 1987 Act was passed.

The position is materially different.

The fact that the veteran only discovered the hearing loss in 1995, in 2010 or in 2026 does not turn the pre-1987 acts or omissions into post-1987 conduct.

The repeal was not retrospective. A later diagnosis does not move the original military exposure across the legal cut-off.

Does pre-1987 noise exposure become irrelevant if I served afterwards?

No.

There is an important difference between whether historic exposure happened and whether damages can be recovered from the MOD for that historic period.

A veteran's hearing history may need to be understood as a whole.

Earlier records may help explain:

• baseline hearing;
• changes between audiograms;
• the pattern of deterioration;
• the duration and type of military noise exposure;
• tinnitus history; and
• what hearing damage was already present by later points in service.

So pre-1987 records should not simply be discarded.

But using an old audiogram as medical evidence does not remove the statutory Crown-immunity problem for pre-15 May 1987 negligence. That distinction is particularly important in careers that span the cut-off.

The date applies to acts or omissions — not simply "noise dates"

The statutory wording is important.

Section 1 of the 1987 Act refers to an injury suffered in consequence of an "act or omission" committed before the Act was passed.

In a military hearing-loss context, allegations might concern more than the simple fact that a weapon or vehicle made noise.

A negligence case can potentially involve questions about:

• assessment of noise risk;
• systems of work;
• hearing protection;
• instructions;
• training;
• enforcement of hearing-protection requirements;
• health surveillance;
• exposure management; and
• other alleged failures.

The legal analysis therefore concerns the conduct said to have caused the injury and when that conduct occurred.

Did the 1987 Act make the MOD automatically liable after that date?

No.

Removing immunity is not the same as proving negligence.

After 15 May 1987, a claimant still needs the legal elements of a civil claim to be satisfied. Depending on the case, these can include questions concerning:

• duty of care;
• breach of duty;
• causation;
• the amount of hearing loss attributable to military noise;
• limitation;
• contributory negligence;
• apportionment; and
• damages.

The 1987 Act removed a statutory barrier. It did not create automatic compensation whenever a service member was injured.

What about combat immunity?

This is another separate concept.

The repeal of section 10 did not mean every injury occurring during military operations suddenly became actionable. English common law separately recognises combat immunity in appropriate circumstances.

For example, Mulcahy v Ministry of Defence [1996] QB 732 concerned a soldier injured, including suffering hearing damage, while operating an artillery gun during the Gulf War. The case is associated with the principle that ordinary duties of care do not necessarily apply between service personnel engaged with the enemy in battle conditions.

Later MOD litigation has considered the scope of that doctrine further.

So there are two concepts that should not be confused.

Crown immunity is the statutory protection preserved for relevant acts or omissions before 15 May 1987.

Combat immunity is a separate common-law doctrine concerning particular military operational circumstances.

What has Abbott changed?

The modern military hearing-loss litigation is now dominated by Abbott and Others v Ministry of Defence [2026] EWHC 941 (KB).

By the time of the final judgment, the wider military deafness litigation involved 10,440 claims — 8,138 where Hugh James is instructed and 2,302 brought by other firms.

But the final Abbott trial was not a fresh judicial decision that abolished the historic 1987 cut-off.

In spring 2024, the parties reached an agreement known as the Matrix which disposed of several generic liability issues.

The 2026 judgment then focused heavily on the remaining generic medical, causation and damages questions.

Why the distinction matters when reading an Abbott claim

Suppose a veteran served for many years on both sides of 15 May 1987.

Their audiograms and exposure history may tell one continuous medical story.

But the legal claim may have to distinguish between periods that sit on opposite sides of the Crown-immunity cut-off.

That is why several concepts appear together in the modern litigation — Crown immunity, apportionment, noise exposure, causation and quantification.

They answer different parts of the problem.

The hearing test asks: "What happened to this person's hearing?"

Crown immunity asks: "For which historic conduct can an ordinary tort claim be brought?"

Those are not the same question.

Does the War Pension Scheme use the 15 May 1987 cut-off?

No. This is extremely important.

A civil negligence claim against the MOD and a claim under the War Pension Scheme (WPS) are different routes.

The Government confirmed again in April 2025 that veterans affected by the pre-1987 Crown-immunity rule may have a route to compensation through the War Pension Scheme.

The WPS broadly applies where an injury or illness was caused or made worse by service before 6 April 2005. It does not use 15 May 1987 as its general eligibility cut-off.

That means a veteran should not hear "your exposure was before May 1987" and conclude "there is no possible service-compensation route at all".

It may prevent an ordinary civil negligence claim for the protected period. That is a different proposition.

Important: hearing loss has special War Pension Scheme rules

The WPS also has its own rules about hearing loss.

What is the significance of 6 April 2005?

This is another date veterans regularly encounter. It serves a different purpose.

15 May 1987 is relevant to the historic Crown-immunity boundary for civil claims.

6 April 2005 is the dividing date between the main service-compensation schemes.

For injury or illness caused by service:

• before 6 April 2005 — the War Pension Scheme is generally relevant;
• on or after 6 April 2005 — the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme is generally relevant.

The current GOV.UK eligibility guidance uses those dates expressly.

What if my service crossed 6 April 2005 as well?

Some veterans have service spanning both the WPS and AFCS periods. Our guide to civil claim vs AFCS vs War Pension compares all three routes side by side.

These can become more complicated.

The Upper Tribunal has considered so-called "spanning" cases, where service occurred both before and after 6 April 2005. JOC v Secretary of State for Defence [2022] UKUT 208 (AAC) is particularly relevant here because it is itself a hearing-loss spanning case; HH-T v Secretary of State for Defence [2016] UKUT 418 (AAC) also addresses the boundary.

The two schemes have different rules, evidential tests, time limits, forms of award and review provisions.

A long-serving veteran could therefore have several dates that matter for entirely different reasons.

A simple timeline

Does it matter if I cannot remember exact dates of noise exposure?

It can.

Military careers rarely divide neatly into "all noise exposure happened on one exact day".

Exposure may have occurred across years of weapons training, exercises, deployments, vehicles, aircraft, ships, machinery and repeated live firing.

If your service crossed 15 May 1987, dates become particularly important because they help establish which activities occurred before the statutory cut-off, after it, or across both periods.

Useful evidence can include:

• service records;
• posting history;
• unit history;
• training records;
• medical records;
• audiograms;
• noise-surveillance records;
• witness evidence; and
• your own detailed chronology.

Our guide to military medical records and hearing tests explains how to obtain your own MOD records and reconstruct the timeline.

Do I need my old audiograms?

They can be extremely useful.

Historic hearing tests may help establish:

• what your hearing looked like at different points in service;
• when deterioration was first recorded;
• whether changes continued after 15 May 1987;
• whether there is a pattern consistent with military noise exposure; and
• how the hearing history fits with later testing.

The 2026 Abbott judgment confirmed that properly conducted pure-tone audiometry is central evidence in the diagnosis and assessment of military NIHL, while also stressing that audiometry should be considered in context and as a whole rather than in isolation.

See our guides to how to read a military audiogram and noise-induced hearing loss.

Frequently asked questions

The key point

The easiest mistake to make with 15 May 1987 is to treat it as a medical eligibility date.

It isn't. It is a legal boundary created by Parliament.

Before that date, section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 provided a statutory immunity which prevented many service personnel from pursuing ordinary tort claims against the Crown. The Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987 removed that protection prospectively.

It did not rewrite the past.

For somebody whose military career spans the date, that distinction can be crucial. And for somebody whose service ended before it, the separate War Pension Scheme should not be confused with the civil claim that Crown immunity may prevent.