In a case that could reverberate across the British military establishment, a former Royal Marine has alleged that he and others in his unit cheated official hearing tests—with the tacit approval of military medics—to ensure they could be deployed to Afghanistan. The claim, made by Christopher Lambie, is now at the heart of a sprawling High Court battle involving around 10,000 ex-service personnel suing the Ministry of Defence (MoD) for noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL).
Lambie, 45, is one of four so-called "test cases" being heard before Mr Justice Garnham, with the outcome expected to set a precedent for thousands of similar claims. According to BBC reporting, Lambie is seeking more than £400,000 in damages from the MoD, including approximately £307,000 for future earnings he alleges will be lost as a result of his hearing loss. The MoD, however, has countered with an offer of about £58,000, arguing that Lambie’s hearing impairment has not—and will not—affect his ability to earn a living.
In his witness statement, Lambie recounted his earliest exposures to hazardous noise, beginning as a cadet at age 13, when he fired weapons on ranges without hearing protection. He joined the Royal Marines in 1998 and was diagnosed with NIHL just four years later, in 2002. But, as Lambie told the court, "nothing was put in place to prevent me from being exposed to loud noise."
Perhaps most striking are Lambie’s allegations about the pre-deployment hearing tests before his 2011 Afghanistan tour. He admitted failing the first test but passing a retake by observing the medic conducting the test. "I watched the medic doing the hearing test press the button for the tone and then I pressed my clicker straight away," Lambie stated, according to The Telegraph. He went further, claiming, "The medic conducting the tests was completely aware of this and was happy for me to do this to allow me to get a good grading and be deployed."
Lambie’s testimony paints a picture of a system under pressure to field as many deployable troops as possible, sometimes at the expense of medical rigor. "We all knew that the emphasis on the staff was to ensure that Marines passed all the tests they needed to pass for deployment, as the MoD needed as many people as possible to deploy. This is why the medics helped us pass our medicals," he said. The culture of cutting corners, Lambie claimed, became something of a running joke among his unit, with many admitting to "cheating the hearing tests to ensure they passed them and how they could go on deployment."
After his military discharge in 2021, Lambie transitioned to a career as a defence and security consultant. Still, according to his barrister Harry Steinberg KC, the NIHL has "affected his career prospects," notably blocking him from joining the police and fire service, professions that require unimpaired hearing.
The MoD, for its part, has accepted "primary causation"—in other words, it acknowledges that Lambie’s hearing loss was caused by his service. However, it contests the scale of his impairment and the compensation sought. David Platt KC, representing the department, described Lambie’s "instance of faking" the 2011 hearing test as an "undoubtedly regrettable" but "apparently isolated instance of cheating." Platt argued that the sums Lambie is seeking are "wholly unrealistic," insisting, "Mr Lambie’s NIHL has not impeded his career progress so far and is unlikely to do so in the future. He does not allege that his hearing deficit made it more difficult for him to obtain a job. His hearing deficit is evidently not inhibiting his career progression."
The ongoing trial is expected to last nine weeks, with the stakes high not only for Lambie but for thousands of veterans in similar situations. The majority of the 10,000 claimants are represented by the law firm Hugh James, which previously agreed on a "matrix" with the MoD to determine compensation claims. Other test cases being heard alongside Lambie’s include former infantryman Jack Craggs, signaller David Lloyd, and rifleman Michael Evans—all of whom report suffering from NIHL and, in some cases, tinnitus. As barrister Steinberg summarized, "All describe being regularly exposed to excessive noise, often without the benefit of any hearing protection at all."
The MoD’s position has evolved over recent years. At a hearing in July last year, the ministry admitted for the first time that it had a duty of care to former personnel, reversing its stance from earlier legal battles. The MoD also conceded that noise exposure during service caused hearing loss among former personnel, though it continues to dispute the extent of impairment in individual cases and the appropriate level of compensation.
Some cases have already settled. Retired Lt Col Andrew Davies, 58, accepted £182,250 from the MoD, telling the BBC that the payout "does finally acknowledge what I lost and provides some justice." Davies called serving "an honour and a privilege" but described being left with a permanent, preventable injury as "hard to accept." Another former serviceman, Stephen Hambridge, settled his case for £550,000.
The MoD has emphasized its efforts to "ensure value for money for the taxpayer" by defending a range of claims or limiting costs. A spokesperson explained, "Many of these claims are historic, and in the years since, we have substantially improved protective measures around hearing to prevent noise-related issues amongst our people. The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme provides no-fault compensation to Service Personnel and veterans for injuries, illness and death caused by service."
Yet, the legal challenges facing the MoD are not limited to NIHL claims. Thousands of military veterans are also pursuing legal action against both the ministry and an earplug manufacturer, alleging that faulty ear protection issued during service contributed to their hearing loss. The scale of these lawsuits underscores a broader reckoning with the long-term health impacts of military service and the adequacy of protective measures provided to those in uniform.
As the High Court proceedings unfold, lawyers, veterans, and policymakers alike are watching closely. The final judgment will likely shape not only the financial futures of thousands of ex-service personnel but also the standards of care and accountability within the British military for years to come.
With the trial underway and testimony continuing, the question of how Britain compensates its injured veterans—and how it prevents similar harm in the future—remains very much in the public eye.
