The High Court has now handed down a further judgment in the Abbott v Ministry of Defence litigation, this time dealing specifically with costs. The decision provides important guidance for firms acting in the military noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) claims and, in particular, clarifies how the court approached the substantial common costs generated by the group litigation.

In Abbott and Others v Ministry of Defence [2026] EWHC 2083 (KB), Mr Justice Garnham rejected the Ministry of Defence’s argument that there should be no order as to costs following the mixed outcome of the test case trial. Instead, the claimants were awarded 60% of their common generic costs.

The decision follows the April 2026 judgment in David Abbott and Others v Ministry of Defence [2026] EWHC 941 (KB), which resolved important generic issues concerning the diagnosis and quantification of military NIHL claims.

For firms managing claims within this cohort, the two judgments together have significant implications for costs budgeting, proportionality and the assessment of common and individual costs.

 

The Abbott v MoD Judgment: A Quick Recap

On 24 April 2026, Mr Justice Garnham handed down judgment in David Abbott and Others v Ministry of Defence [2026] EWHC 941 (KB) in the King’s Bench Division.

The litigation, run by Hugh James, was first issued in 2021 on an omnibus claim form in the name of David Abbott and around 3,500 other claimants. It has since grown into one of the largest group litigation cohorts brought against the Ministry of Defence, with thousands of noise-induced hearing loss and tinnitus claims attached.

The trial, held over a number of sitting days between October and December 2025, was designed through careful case management to resolve generic issues common to the wider cohort rather than adjudicate individual claims on their merits. Of six test cases originally selected, two settled shortly before trial and two were discontinued during the trial, leaving Mr Lambie and Mr Craggs to determine the outstanding questions of causation and quantum.

The central dispute concerned the methodology to be used when assessing military NIHL claims. The MoD argued for the established CLB and LCB tests used in industrial deafness litigation, while the claimants relied on newer guidelines developed by Professor Brian Moore.

Mr Justice Garnham preferred the claimants’ position, meaning Professor Moore’s methodology will form the basis for diagnosing and quantifying NIHL across the cohort.

On the individual outcomes, Mr Lambie succeeded, receiving general damages of £39,000, £27,000 for hearing aids, and £64,800 for loss of earning capacity, subject to a 10% reduction under the Matrix. Mr Craggs largely failed on his hearing loss claim but succeeded in relation to tinnitus, recovering £19,000 in general damages and £44 for counselling, subject to a 25% Matrix discount.

 

The New Costs Judgment

The subsequent judgment in Abbott and Others v Ministry of Defence [2026] EWHC 2083 (KB) considered the costs consequences of that trial.

The MoD argued that there should be no order as to costs because the outcome was mixed. Although the claimants had succeeded on the methodology issue, the MoD had succeeded on certain scientific issues, and the individual outcomes were not uniformly favourable to the claimants. Three test claims had also been discontinued during the trial.

The court did not accept that a no-order as to costs outcome was appropriate.

Mr Justice Garnham concluded that the claimants had achieved sufficient success on the issues that mattered to the litigation as a whole to justify a substantial costs award. However, the court also recognised the areas in which the MoD had succeeded and the effect of the discontinued claims.

The result was an order that the MoD pay 60% of the claimants’ common generic costs.

The agreed gross figure for those common costs was £9,738,983.15, making the 60% award approximately £5.84 million before taking account of any other relevant costs or payments.

The court also ordered an interim payment on account of costs of £2,515,194.95.

For practitioners, the decision is significant because it demonstrates that a mixed result in complex group litigation does not necessarily lead to a no-order-as-to-costs outcome. The court will look at the overall success achieved on the issues that were genuinely central to the litigation and can make a substantial percentage costs order where appropriate.

 

Where the 60% Costs Award Matters

The decision is particularly relevant because of the scale of the common costs involved.

The Abbott litigation required extensive evidence and preparation on generic issues affecting thousands of claims. Those costs were incurred to resolve questions that could then be applied across the wider cohort.

The court’s approach therefore provides a useful illustration of how costs consequences can be dealt with where a party achieves significant success but does not win every issue.

The 60% figure reflects the court’s assessment of the overall outcome rather than a simple calculation based on which party technically won individual arguments.

This is an important distinction for firms dealing with complex litigation. A party’s costs entitlement can depend not only on the final damages recovered but also on the importance of the issues on which it succeeded, the extent of any failures and the way the litigation was conducted.

 

The 2024 Matrix Agreement

The costs judgment needs to be considered alongside the Matrix settlement scheme approved by the High Court in July 2024.

Under the Matrix, the MoD accepted that it owed a duty of care to service personnel in relation to NIHL claims and agreed not to rely on limitation defences for claims brought within the scheme.

The Matrix also resolved questions concerning Crown immunity, combat immunity, breach of duty, contributory negligence and military noise exposure levels through agreed percentage discounts.

This left causation and quantum to be determined in individual cases, which was a major reason why the April 2026 test case trial was necessary.

The Matrix therefore significantly narrowed the issues requiring determination in individual claims, but it did not remove the need for costs to be considered under the ordinary costs framework applicable to the litigation.

 

What Does the Judgment Mean for Costs Budgeting?

The April and August judgments should be considered when reviewing costs budgets for military NIHL claims.

First, the methodology dispute has now been resolved at a generic level. Firms should therefore consider whether existing Precedent H budgets contain allowances for expert evidence or legal work that was originally included because the Moore methodology remained contested.

The resolution of that issue does not mean that expert evidence will cease to be important. Individual causation and quantum issues remain capable of generating substantial work, particularly where the claimant’s hearing loss, tinnitus, employment history or future losses require detailed evidence.

However, budgets should reflect the fact that the generic methodological dispute has now been determined.

Second, the costs judgment demonstrates the importance of distinguishing between common generic costs and individual claim costs. The £9.74 million figure considered by the court related to the common costs of the generic litigation. It should not be treated as a guide to the appropriate budget for an individual claimant.

Third, the decision reinforces the importance of recording the work undertaken on issues that have wider application across a cohort. Where significant costs are incurred resolving generic issues, practitioners should be able to demonstrate why that work was necessary and proportionate to the litigation as a whole.

 

Matrix Discounts and Proportionality

The Matrix discounts also remain relevant when considering proportionality.

The damages ultimately recoverable in individual claims may be reduced by an agreed percentage depending on the applicable Matrix provisions. In the April judgment, for example, Mr Lambie’s damages were subject to a 10% Matrix discount, while Mr Craggs’s successful tinnitus award was subject to a 25% discount.

When considering the proportionality of costs in an individual claim, practitioners should therefore distinguish between the headline valuation of the claim and the amount ultimately recoverable following application of the relevant Matrix discount.

That does not mean that the discounted damages figure is automatically the sole measure of proportionality. The nature and complexity of the work undertaken the issues in dispute and the circumstances of the claim remain relevant. However, the Matrix outcome should be factored into any assessment of the relationship between costs and the value of the claim.

 

What Happens to Claims After the Matrix Deadline

The Matrix registration deadline was extended from 31 January 2026 to 31 July 2026. That deadline has now passed.

Claims may still potentially be brought outside the Matrix, but they will not automatically benefit from the concession contained within the scheme. This makes the distinction between claims within and outside the Matrix particularly important when assessing litigation risk, potential costs exposure and the work required to establish liability.

For firms dealing with claims outside the Matrix, cost budgets may need to reflect the potentially broader range of issues requiring evidence and determination.

 

Practical Costs Considerations for NIHL Claims

For practitioners currently managing military NIHL claims, the Abbott judgments suggest several areas worth reviewing:

• Review existing Precedent H budgets: consider whether allowances for generic methodology disputes remain appropriate following the April judgment.
• Separate generic and individual work: ensure budgets and supporting records clearly distinguish work undertaken for the benefit of the wider cohort from claimant-specific work.
• Consider the Matrix discount: factor the applicable discount into valuation and proportionality assessments without treating it as the only measure of a reasonable costs level.
• Review expert evidence: although the methodology dispute has been resolved, causation and quantum may still require substantial audiological, medical and other expert evidence.
• Record the importance of generic issues: where high costs are incurred on issues affecting a large number of claims, the relationship between that work and the wider litigation should be clearly demonstrated.

 

FAQs

What did the latest Abbott v MoD costs judgment decide?

In Abbott and Others v Ministry of Defence [2026] EWHC 2083 (KB), the High Court ordered the MoD to pay 60% of the claimants’ common generic costs, rather than making no order as to costs.

How much were the Abbott v MoD common costs?

The agreed gross common costs were £9,738,983.15. The court awarded the claimants 60% of those costs and ordered an interim payment on account of £2,515,194.95.

Why did the court award 60% rather than 100% of costs?

The court took into account the overall outcome of the litigation. Although the claimants succeeded on important issues, including the methodology used to assess military NIHL, the MoD succeeded on certain scientific issues, and three test claims were discontinued during the trial.

Does the Abbott judgment affect costs budgets for individual NIHL claims?

Potentially. The generic methodology dispute has now been resolved, so firms should review budgets that included substantial allowances for arguing that issue. Individual causation, quantum and expert evidence may nevertheless continue to require high costs.

 

How Greener Costs Can Help

The Abbott v MoD judgments demonstrate the importance of carefully structured costs budgets in complex group litigation.

Greener Costs assists firms with Precedent H budgeting, bills of costs, costs negotiation and detailed assessment proceedings. We can help practitioners review existing budgets following significant developments in litigation, assess the costs implications of generic and individual issues, and prepare costs documentation that accurately reflects the work undertaken.

If you’d like to discuss costs strategy on a military NIHL claim, contact Greener Costs today on 01204 263047 or email info@greenercosts.co.uk.