Questions and Answers

Before contacting the EWI Helpline, have a look at the questions asked by fellow members, you may find an answer to your query:

Advice notes are provided to members of the Expert Witness Institute in support of their work. They represent the Institute’s view of good practice in a particular area, and members are not obliged to follow them. They do not constitute legal or professional advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for it. Whilst care has been taken to ensure that they are accurate, up to date, and useful, The Expert Witness Institute will not accept any legal liability in relation to them. If specific advice or information is required, then a suitably qualified professional should be consulted.

Bevan v Ministry of Defence [2025] EWHC 1145 (KB)
Keith Rix 1364

Bevan v Ministry of Defence [2025] EWHC 1145 (KB)

byKeith Rix

 

Commentary

Apart from the oft-made point about the importance for experts of the chronology, especially in cases where the issue is causation or clinical negligence, there is nothing in this case for healthcare experts in general. It is an importance case for ENT experts because several similar claims are due to be heard over the next months. 

Case

Between 2017 and 2020 the Claimant, then a serving soldier, was negligently exposed to dangerous and unsafe levels of noise by the Defendant when testing Ajax armoured vehicles at the manufacturer’s premises. He wore a headset (Bowman combat II) covering his right ear whilst inside the vehicle, which was used for communication with others and to receive alarm warnings from the vehicle. This was his claim for damages in respect of a hearing injury said to have been caused by that exposure. It is the first of several similar claims due to be heard in this court over the next months. Breach of duty has been admitted, causation and (to the extent necessary) quantum are in issue. This judgment deals with causation.

Before considering the various mechanisms which might have brought about the injury, the judge made two important points.

First, Mr Bevan said he suffered 2 types of injury: The primary injury was hearing loss and tinnitus (which are connected). In addition, he suffered psychological damage as a result of the tinnitus in the form of a "conversion disorder" (or functional neurological disorder (FND) which led to non-organic hearing loss. If the primary injury was not caused by the negligent exposure the relevance of FND falls away.

Secondly, hearing loss and tinnitus can (and often do) occur without any injury or fault at all. The cause of these issues may be very difficult to identify. The ENT experts agreed that "a significant number of individuals with hearing loss/tinnitus never have an underlying cause diagnosed, even with the very best investigation."

To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. 

Already a member? Login

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.