Colp & Cofa

Originally published 20 July 2015. Updated 8 October 2026.

Noise-induced hearing loss claims prompted a heated debate in 2015 about rising claim numbers, legal costs and whether solicitors were moving into industrial disease work following changes to the economics of road traffic accident claims.

The question posed by the original article—was hearing loss becoming “the new whiplash”?—captured the insurance industry’s concern. For law firms, however, the more useful question is whether their competence, evidence gathering, supervision and funding arrangements support the claims they accept.

What was being reported in 2015?

The original article referred to contemporary reporting that more than 70,000 hearing loss claims had been made in the preceding year. It also recorded the Association of British Insurers’ assertion that 70% of claims were unsuccessful, and Aviva’s statement that it paid £5 in legal fees for every £1 paid on successful noise-induced hearing loss claims.

These were historical figures and attributed industry statements. They should not be read as current statistics or as proof that an unsuccessful claim was dishonest.

Claimant representatives challenged the suggestion that solicitors were simply pursuing a replacement source of fees. Their response emphasised the effects of hearing loss and the specialist work involved in establishing a claim.

That distinction remains important. Concerns about litigation costs do not remove an injured person’s right to pursue a properly supported claim. Equally, commercial opportunity does not establish that a practice has the expertise or systems to conduct the work.

What has changed for noise-induced hearing loss claims?

In England and Wales, Annex E of the Pre-Action Protocol for Disease and Illness Claims provides a specific procedure for relevant NIHL claims where the first letter of claim is sent on or after 1 October 2023.

Section VIII of CPR Part 45 addresses fixed recoverable costs for claims that have been, or should have been, started under Annex E and would normally be, or are, allocated to the fast track.

The regime does not cover every hearing loss claim. Annex E identifies exclusions, including military service claims, claims valued above £25,000 and specified other categories. Firms should establish the applicable procedure and costs position at the outset.

Consult the current Pre-Action Protocol for Disease and Illness Claims and CPR Part 45 when assessing a matter.

Evidence and limitation need early attention

A hearing loss claim needs an individual assessment of the client’s employment history, alleged exposure, medical evidence, potential defendants and limitation position.

For claims proceeding under Annex E, the protocol specifies supporting material for the letter of claim, including an audiogram, an HMRC employment schedule and Employers’ Liability Tracing Office search results.

From a supervision perspective, a useful file review asks:

• Who has assessed the relevant limitation and procedural deadlines?
• Does the employment history support the allegations against each defendant?
• What does the medical evidence establish, and what remains uncertain?
• Have material inconsistencies been investigated and recorded?
• Has the client received advice about the merits, risks and next steps?
• Who is responsible for reviewing the decision to issue proceedings?

A standard workflow can help organise the work. It still needs supervision capable of identifying when the facts require a different approach.

The SRA’s hearing loss case study is a warning

The SRA’s guidance on conduct in disputes includes a hearing loss case study involving a senior partner and a solicitor employee who were struck off.

The failings included missed service deadlines, inadequate medical evidence and misleading conduct. The account also describes a substantive alteration to a client’s witness statement and attempts to conceal the reasons for procedural failures.

The lesson extends beyond industrial disease litigation: a problem on a file must be investigated and addressed honestly. Commercial pressure cannot justify misleading a client, an opponent or the court.

Read the SRA’s conduct in disputes guidance for the case study and the wider professional obligations.

Explain “no win, no fee” arrangements properly

Clients need to understand what they may pay if a claim succeeds, fails or ends before completion. Explain applicable deductions, insurance premiums, disbursements and termination charges in the context of the particular retainer.

The SRA’s warning notice on high-volume consumer claims stresses clear costs information, informed consent and the need to review template documents. An error repeated across a large number of retainers can affect many clients.

Review the SRA warning notice on “no win, no fee” and other fee arrangements when checking the firm’s client care process.

Client feedback can help identify recurring confusion about funding or deductions. Our related About Conveyancing article explains why law firms should welcome client feedback and complaints.

Assess competence before expanding the practice

Before accepting a new category of claim or increasing volumes, assess the team’s experience, training needs, supervision capacity and access to suitable expert advice.

Our guide to continuing competence for solicitors and COLPs explains how identifying learning needs and evaluating training can support that assessment.

Record material risks and review them as the work develops. The earlier article on maintaining a living and breathing risk register describes why a register should respond to events within the practice.

Connect commercial decisions with compliance oversight

For COLPs and managing partners, introducing a new service should involve more than a revenue forecast. Consider how the firm will select cases, monitor deadlines, supervise evidence gathering and respond when a matter develops problems.

Our article on integrating risk management and SRA compliance explores the value of bringing those decisions together.

Conveyancing firms face a comparable management challenge when volume and fee pressure increase. For a related perspective, see what Van Halen can teach conveyancers about compliance checks.