Denis Naughten
Ceist:104 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Defence the implications of the recent Supreme Court decision for deafness compensation claims; and the total cost to the State in this regard. [22741/98]
Written Answers. - Hearing Impairment Claims.
The case in question was Michael Smith v Minister for Defence and Others, which was originally heard in February 1997, when the plaintiff was awarded £20,000 by the High Court. It was the State's case on appeal, that it had been found that the plaintiff had normal hearing for a man of his age; that there was no evidence that he had above normal hearing prior to exposure to noise from gunfire; and, that even if he had suffered some loss of hearing that this loss was not of an extent to warrant compensation.
I was clearly pleased that the court upheld the State's appeal and referred the matter back to the High Court. I was also pleased with the view expressed by the court that just because a person has been in the Army and has been exposed to gunfire noise without ear protection does not mean that a person is automatically entitled to damages.
While this judgment will not resolve the Army hearing loss issue, I am nonetheless interpreting it as being favourable to the Government's position. I hope that the Supreme Court judgment would be particularly noted by persons who think there is compensation due to them just because they have served with the Defence Forces.
The Smith case of itself will not impact on the overall cost, which I conservatively estimate at £550 million and which is the subject of other questions today. The Hanley test case, on which this estimate is based, is also under appeal and I understand it will be heard in April next.