The army deafness claims were a series of personal injury claims taken from 1992 to 2002 against the Irish Department of Defence by members of the Irish Defence Forces for noise-induced hearing loss resulting from exposure to loud noise during military operations and training. The claims stated that the government had failed to provide adequate ear protectors during firing exercises, as was required under regulations dating back to the 1950s. About 16,500 claims were made, resulting in payouts totalling about €300m. Background From 1952, army regulations required the use of ear protection on shooting ranges and in artillery drill. Initially, cotton wool was recommended; in 1961, cotton wool moistened with Vaseline; and from 1972 plastic Sonex earplugs were provided. In 1987 a comprehensive regime of protection was introduced with modern protection and safety protocols. Some plaintiffs alleged they had used cigarette butts as ear protection. The government in 1998 claimed that all soldiers had been issued from 1952 with protection in conformity to best practice of the time, although the level of protection provided was later recognised as inadequate; that the decision on whether to avail of earplugs was left to the discretion of the soldier rather than being commanded by a superior; and that claims brought by plaintiffs that they had never been issued with protection could not be disproven as there were no specific records kept for earplugs issued to each soldier. Legal proceedings Several test cases were brought between 1992 and 1996 by litigants represented by solicitors on a no win no fee basis. Michael Smith, the Minister for Defence in 1998, said: The cases as they had been heard before the courts went as follows: an isolated case was given an award in August 1992; the next case did not arise until February 1994 — in this case the claim was dismissed; arising from the time lag before cases come to hearing, it was not until December 1995 that a landmark case, the B case with little actual impairment, was heard in the High Court and an award of £45,000 was made; it was not until June 1996 that another case, the N case, came to hearing — the claimant received £24,720, notwithstanding the fact that the presiding judge found that the individual had persevered with a claim for loss of hearing that, on relatively clear evidential grounds, was unsustainable. I have nothing to add to