William Isherwood, a former sergeant in the Irish Guards, has filed a High Court claim against the Ministry of Defence (MoD) seeking £75 ,000 in compensation for hearing loss he alleges was caused by inadequate ear protection during training and a 1992 deployment to Northern Ireland.

£75,000 Compensation Claim Stems from 16‑Year Army Career

According to documents filed at the High Court, Mr Isherwood joined the Army in 1983, served in Germany, Belize, and Northern Ireland, and left in 1999. He says the noise from helicopters,heavy gunfire, rockets and explosions during his service, coupled with sub‑standard ear defenders that frequently fell out, left him with lasting hearing damage, tinnitus and heightened sound sensitivity.

Sub‑Standard Ear Defenders and Unused Protection in Helicopter Transport

The claim details that during pre‑deployment training for Northern Ireland,the claimant was transported by Chinook or Puma helicopters a few times per week without any hearing protection. MoD lawyers argue the ear defenders issued were "reasonable and suitable" and that policing their use at all times is impossible. The court papers note that green ear defenders or push‑in earplugs were available but often fell out, rendering them ineffective.

Noise Exposure During Basic Training and Field Exercises

Mr Isherwood’s barrister, Philip De Berry, described the training environment at Pirbright as intensely noisy. The claimant fired an SLR infantry assault rifle, Browning pistol, and general purpose machine gun (GPMG) that could discharge up to 1,000 rounds per minute, and participated in grenade and pyrotechnic drills. The documents state that hearing protection was generally not used during these exercises, despite the availability of earplugs.

MoD’s Defense: “Inherently Noisy” Training and Impossible Zero Exposure

MoD lawyers counter that lethal weaponry is inherently noisy and that realistic combat training cannot reduce noise exposure to zero . They maintain that the Army did everything possible to minimise risks and that the claimant’s hearing damage cannot be solely attributed to the MOD’s negligence.

Unanswered Questions About Duty of Care and Noise Assessments

Key questions remain: Did the MOD conduct proper noise assessments during the 1990s? Were the ear defenders provided truly inadequate by contemporary standards? And how will the court weigh the claim that the claimant’s hearing loss was caused by a combination of training, deployment, and personal use of protective gear?