Irish Army deafness claims

The Irish Army deafness claims were a series of personal injury claims taken against the Government of Ireland by members of the Irish Defence Forces. The claimants had suffered noise-induced hearing loss from exposure to loud nouse during military operations and training. The claims stated that the government had failed to provide adequate ear protectors during firing exercises, as was required under regulations dating back to the 1950s.

History

From 1952, army regulations required the use of ear protection during practice on firing ranges or artillery drill. The government in 1998 alleged that all soldiers had been issued with earplugs from then until 1987 in conformity to best practice of the time, although the level of protection they provided was later recognised as inadequate. The government also alleged that the decision on whether to avail of earplugs was left to the discretion of the soldier rather than being commanded by a superior. It alleged that allegations brought by claimants that they had never been issued with protection could not be disproven as there were no specific records kept for earplugs issued to each soldier.

Several test cases were brought between 1992 and 1996 by litigants represented by solicitors on a no win no fee basis. Michael Smith, the Minister for Defence in 1998, said:

The cases as they had been heard before the courts went as follows: an isolated case was given an award in August 1992; the next case did not arise until February 1994 — in this case the claim was dismissed; arising from the time lag before cases come to hearing, it was not until December 1995 that a landmark case, the B case with little actual impairment, was heard in the High Court and an award of £45,000 was made; it was not until June 1996 that another case, the N case, came to hearing — the claimant received £24,720, notwithstanding the fact that the presiding judge found that the individual had persevered with a claim for loss of hearing that, on relatively clear evidential grounds, was unsustainable. I have nothing to add to the court's stated reservations about the plaintiff's honesty. Without labouring the point, I trust it will be clear to all Members that this case came as a shattering blow to the State's defence as it laid down a precedent that, even where the plaintiff has been found to be untruthful in the matter of hearing loss, he may still receive substantial compensation for tinnitus. Severe tinnitus — a constant ringing in the ears — is normally present in a small minority of hearing loss cases. It cannot be measured objectively. The case I have just mentioned prompted a major increase in the number of claims.

One further case came to hearing before the summer recess in 1996 and was awarded £25,000. However, it was the sixth, the K case, that proved to be a major landmark. An individual was awarded £80,000 for a minor hearing loss. Although this figure was subsequently reduced under negotiation following a Supreme Court appeal by the State, and although similar cases have subsequently received as little as £5,000, the impact of this judgment is best illustrated by the following statistic: in the five years leading up to this case, a little over 4,000 cases had been submitted to the Department of Defence; in the nine months following it, another 4,000 were received. The floodgates were literally burst open by this judgment. A further case was awarded £17,500 in December. In addition, 136 cases were settled by negotiation during 1996.

In 1997, after a Supreme Court decision, the government negotiated a moratorium on claims while a Department of Health expert group developed a standardised metric for assessing hearing loss. This group's 1998 report informed the Civil Liability (Assessment of Hearing Injury) Act, 1998. Subsequently, the Supreme Court advised the government to assign standardised rates of compensation for the various levels of hearing loss. When Michael Bell revealed he had brought a suit for hearing loss relating to his Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil service, there were calls for him to stand down from the Dáil Public Accounts Committee because of a perception of conflict of interest. He did not do so.

In 2000, the National Treasury Management Agency was empowered to act as the State Claims Agency for class actions against the state, and from 2005 all outstanding army deafness claims were transferred to the State Claims Agency. This resulted in a reduction of 75% in the ratio of legal costs. By 2004, 328 claims had been settled in court, with 14,681 claims being settled out of court.

Consequences

Cost

Defence minister Willie O'Dea said in November 2009 that 16,139 claims had been disposed of, with €288.7m paid to plaintiffs, including legal costs of €100.2 million. There were then 417 "active cases" with an estimated future cost of about €8m. In 2006 it was alleged that in some 152 claims the solicitors had double-charged their fees, but nobody was charged.

Other effects

The large number of claims contributed to a fall in public respect for the Defence Forces and a drop in morale of serving members.

References

Sources

• Expert Hearing Group (1998). "Hearing Disability Assessment" (PDF). Department of Health and Children. Retrieved 2 September 2015.
• "Bills Yearly Index - 1998". Oireachtas debates. Oireachtas. pp. Civil Liability (Assessment of Hearing Injury) Bill, 1998. Retrieved 2 September 2015. {{cite web}}: Invalid |nopp=Y (help); Unknown parameter |nopp= ignored (|no-pp= suggested) (help)
• "Civil Liability (Assessment of Hearing Injury) Act, 1998". Irish Statute Book. Retrieved 2 September 2015.
• "Bills Yearly Index - 2000". Oireachtas debates. Oireachtas. pp. National Treasury Management Agency (Amendment) Bill, 2000. Retrieved 2 September 2015. {{cite web}}: Invalid |nopp=Y (help); Unknown parameter |nopp= ignored (|no-pp= suggested) (help)
• "National Treasury Management Agency (Amendment) Act, 2000". Irish Statute Book. pp. Part 2: State Claims Agency. Retrieved 2 September 2015. {{cite web}}: Invalid |nopp=Y (help); Unknown parameter |nopp= ignored (|no-pp= suggested) (help)
• "Multi-Party Litigation" (PDF). Law Reform Commission Reports. LRC 76-2005. Dublin: Law Reform Commission: 15–16. 2005. ISSN 1393-3132.