A former British Army soldier is suing the Ministry of Defence (MoD) for more than £75,000, claiming his hearing was permanently damaged during military service, including deployments in Northern Ireland during The Troubles.
William Isherwood, a former member of the elite Irish Guards, alleges he was exposed to excessive levels of noise from helicopters, firearms, explosions and military training exercises without adequate hearing protection throughout his 16-year Army career.
The 60-year-old, from Widnes, Cheshire, claims he now suffers from hearing loss, persistent tinnitus and increased sensitivity to sound as a result of his service. He left the Army in 1999 and has launched legal proceedings against the MoD, accusing it of failing to provide suitable ear protection and proper hearing assessments.
According to court documents, Mr Isherwood joined the Army in 1983 and completed basic training at Pirbright before serving with the Irish Guards in Germany, Belize, Northern Ireland and the UK.
His legal team argues that hearing protection provided during training was often ineffective.
“The ear plugs would frequently fall out. Both types of ear protection were poor quality,” court documents state.
The claim says noise exposure began during basic training, where soldiers regularly used weapons including the SLR rifle, Browning pistol and General Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG), capable of firing up to 1,000 rounds per minute.
Mr Isherwood also alleges he was exposed to loud helicopter flights during his 1992 deployment to Northern Ireland.
“In Northern Ireland, the main exposure to noise came when the claimant was transported by helicopter – Chinook or Puma,” his barrister said.
“This would be a few times per week. No hearing protection was provided or used.”
Additional exposure allegedly came from grenades, pyrotechnics, riot training and combat simulation exercises.
His legal team argues that the MoD “caused or permitted the claimant to be exposed to a harmful level of noise which damaged his hearing.”
The former soldier claims the injuries have left him disadvantaged in the workplace and may require hearing aids in the future.
However, the Ministry of Defence strongly disputes the allegations.
In its defence, the MoD argues that the hearing protection provided was “reasonable and suitable” and that realistic military training inevitably involves exposure to noise.
“The defendant was obliged to provide the claimant with demanding and realistic training which accurately – so far as possible – emulated the theatre of war,” MoD barrister Dominic Collingwood stated.
He added: “Close supervision so as to ensure the wearing of hearing protection at all times is impossible in many training scenarios.”
The MoD also argued that military personnel must maintain communication and situational awareness during exercises.
“If noise exposure were reduced… to such levels that situational awareness was lost and/or communication was compromised, operational capability would be significantly affected,” the defence states.
The department further denies any direct link between Mr Isherwood’s hearing problems and his military service, arguing that his hearing was regularly monitored under Army health surveillance programmes.
In addition, MoD lawyers claim the case is time-barred because too much time has passed since Mr Isherwood left the Armed Forces.
The case has yet to be heard in court.