The High Court yesterday granted an application by the Minister for Defence to adjourn all pending Army deafness cases until after Easter.
Granting the adjournment, which relates only to cases listed for hearing in the High Court between now and Easter, Mr Justice Johnson noted differences between medical witnesses in the actions and referred to "doctors differing and economies dying".
Lawyers acting for those taking the hearing cases opposed yesterday's adjournment application.
Making the application, Mr Henry Murphy SC, for the Minister, said the litigation relating to the hearing cases was unprecedented and represented a major threat to the Government finances.
He said the application was based on the impending publication of a report by a Department of Health expert group dealing with an assessment of hearing loss.
It was also sought on the grounds that an as yet undelivered High Court judgment in one Army hearing action, the Gardiner case, could have a bearing on others.
Granting the adjournment, Mr Justice Johnson said medical witnesses called by the plaintiffs and the State could not agree.
The existing law stipulated that when a person who suffered an injury as a result of the negligence of another who owed a duty of care, the person was entitled to have an amount of damages calculated, insofar as money could return them to their existing situation.
The courts acted on the law and the evidence that came before them, the judge said. The present application was unusual, he said, but the circumstances were unusual if not unprecedented. In every case he had heard, medical experts called on both sides had been contradictory.
The judge noted that the State's negligence had not been seriously challenged in any of the cases, even though liability had been denied. This necessitated bringing witnesses who were not called.
Referring to the different systems for measuring hearing loss, the judge said there appeared to be eight systems in the UK and a number in the US. The US system did not recognise the right to compensation for tinnitus.
To date, the doctors had not agreed on any system, he said.
The Army had a system of regulations regarding hearing protection but he had discovered in one case that the Army's expert who gave evidence had not read them and did not intend to do so.
At least 80 per cent of the cases heard had been settled. He did not know the amounts of money involved, the judge added. He appreciated that the expert committee was going to report soon. It was unfortunate that it did not at present appear to have the confidence of many of the plaintiffs' solicitors, he said. Its findings did have the power to change the law.
The judge said he recognised the force of the Minister's argument that the defendants wished to hear the result of the Gardiner case. He also appreciated the tremendous difficulties they must be under, given the number of cases.
Mr Justice Johnson could not ignore the fact that there had been a great deal of public concern about the cases. At present, cases took two to three days. If he acceded to an adjournment, he would not delay the hearings a great deal, because of future claims. It was impossible to ignore that the common defendant was the Minister.
He said he would grant the adjournment in the hope that his judgment or the committee's findings might shorten the hearings and reduce the fact that in every case there were now two teams of doctors contradicting each other on what were basically medical rather than legal matters.
It was impossible to ignore the gravity of the situation which had been produced by a split in the medical profession.
Applying for the adjournment, Mr Murphy said that, to date, £41.6 million had been expended on 1,500 cases. There were a further 10,000 cases to be heard, and others were coming in at the rate of 150 a week. He was instructed that the situation was a major threat to Government finances.
Mr Alan Mahon SC said he represented a number of solicitors representing plaintiffs. He had strict instructions to object strenuously to an adjournment. None of the six or seven ear, nose and throat specialists who had often given evidence for plaintiffs in the actions were on the expert group, he said.
Counsel said that everyone appreciated the cost to the State, but the plaintiffs were entitled to be compensated even if there was an enormous cost.
The list was proceeding slowly because the State was contesting. If this continued it could take five to 10 years to clear the cases of 1218 months.
Mr Adrian Hardiman SC also opposed the adjournment application. He claimed the application was to secure a bogus public acceptance of the so-called expert committee.
It was not possible for that body to bring in a standard system for measuring hearing loss, he said. That was a matter for the courts.