Military Claims.

Yes — military noise-induced hearing loss (M-NIHL) is one of the most common and well-established grounds for compensation claims by veterans. Service in the armed forces frequently involves prolonged exposure to hazardous noise from weapons fire, aircraft, armoured vehicles, and heavy machinery. The MoD has accepted that it owes a duty of care to service personnel in relation to noise exposure. A High Court judgment in April 2026 — following the Hugh James Military Deafness Litigation — provided landmark guidance on how M-NIHL claims should be assessed, and a Matrix Agreement between a group of claimant firms and the MoD has resolved many of the arguments previously used to defend these claims. Veterans who believe they have suffered service-related hearing loss should take legal advice promptly.

Yes — post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other psychiatric conditions caused by military service can give rise to compensation claims against the MoD, as well as claims under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme. A civil negligence claim requires showing that the MoD breached its duty of care — for example, by exposing personnel to foreseeable psychiatric risk without adequate support, failing to recognise and treat symptoms during service, or failing to provide adequate care on discharge. Psychiatric injury claims are legally and medically complex, but they are well-established in military compensation law. Many veterans with PTSD assume their condition is something they must simply live with — understanding that compensation may be available is the first step.

No — receiving an AFCS award does not automatically bar a civil negligence claim against the Ministry of Defence. The two routes are legally distinct: the AFCS is a no-fault scheme providing tariff-based compensation; a civil negligence claim requires proof of fault and compensates actual loss. Where the MoD's negligence caused or contributed to an injury, a civil claim may recover significantly more than the AFCS tariff — including full loss of earnings, care costs, and other heads of loss that the AFCS does not cover. Any AFCS payments received will generally be taken into account in calculating the net damages in a civil claim to avoid double recovery. Veterans considering civil litigation should take specialist legal advice on the interaction between the two routes before accepting a final AFCS settlement.

Yes — an armed forces pension is a matrimonial asset and your spouse is entitled to ask the court to consider it as part of the financial settlement, even if it has not yet come into payment. The court has the power to make a pension sharing order, which transfers a specified percentage of your pension to your spouse at the time of the order. The percentage is implemented by the pension authority — for armed forces pensions, this is the Veterans UK pensions team. Your spouse does not automatically receive half your pension — the court exercises discretion, taking account of all the circumstances including the length of the marriage, each party's needs, and all other assets. In a long marriage where one spouse has served throughout and the other has not worked, the pension may be the most significant asset and the subject of significant negotiation.

Military service creates specific complexities in divorce and financial settlements that do not arise in civilian cases. The most significant is the armed forces pension — often the most valuable asset after the family home, and one that requires specialist valuation and careful treatment in any financial settlement. Service Family Accommodation may need to be vacated quickly on separation. Deployment can affect the timing and practicality of proceedings. Pay structures — including allowances, operational bonuses, and future earnings potential — need to be properly assessed. And where service personnel are posted abroad, jurisdictional questions arise. Despite these complexities, the family courts have well-established ways of dealing with military divorces — the key is taking specialist advice from solicitors experienced in the particular features of armed forces family law.

The standard limitation period is three years from the date of knowledge — when the claimant first knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that they had suffered a significant cold injury attributable to military service. Many veterans with NFCIs did not receive a formal diagnosis at the time of injury and only discover years later that their chronic symptoms are attributable to service. In those cases, the three-year clock may not have started running until the diagnosis was made. The court also has discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to allow late claims where it is equitable to do so. Veterans who believe they may have an NFCI claim should take legal advice without delay — do not assume the limitation period has expired without checking.

The limitation period for a psychiatric injury claim is three years from the date of knowledge — when the claimant first knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that they had suffered a significant psychiatric injury attributable to their service. In PTSD cases this is particularly important: many veterans suppress symptoms for years, self-medicate, or attribute their difficulties to personal failings rather than a recognised medical condition. The date of knowledge is often the date of formal diagnosis — not the date of the traumatic events. The court also has discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to allow late claims where it is equitable to do so, taking account of why the claim was delayed. Veterans who believe they may be out of time should take legal advice before assuming their claim is lost.

The standard limitation period for a personal injury negligence claim — including against the MoD — is three years from the date of injury or the date of knowledge — whichever is later. The date of knowledge is when the claimant first knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that they had suffered a significant injury attributable to the MoD's fault. For long-latency conditions such as noise-induced hearing loss or industrial disease, the date of knowledge may be significantly later than the date of exposure. The court also has a discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to allow a claim to proceed out of time where it would be equitable to do so — taking account of factors including the length of the delay, the reasons for it, and the strength of the claim. Taking legal advice promptly is essential even if you think you may be out of time.