In Mr Glyn Cook v TJS Welding and Fabrication Co Ltd & Ors, a noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) claim was dismissed following trial at Nottingham County Court on 24 February 2026. The court was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant had been exposed to excessive noise in breach of duty during his employment with the defendant companies.

The claimant relied primarily on his own witness evidence to establish exposure. However, the court found that this evidence lacked sufficient precision and detail to support a factual finding of exposure above permissible levels. In particular, the statement was generalised and failed to provide clear evidence as to the nature of the work undertaken, the tools used, or the frequency and duration of any alleged noise exposure.

Expert evidence

The single joint engineer reached a similar conclusion. Owing to the lack of specificity in the claimant’s factual evidence, the expert was unable to provide a definitive assessment of exposure. Instead, he relied on generalised estimates based on what the claimant’s exposure might have been if he were working as a “typical” welder or fabricator.

The court rejected this approach, finding that the expert’s opinion was necessarily speculative and not grounded in sufficiently detailed factual evidence. Generalised assumptions about industry roles could not compensate for the absence of clear evidence about what the claimant actually did in practice, or how often and for how long he was exposed to noise.

The court’s findings

The judge confirmed that, to establish breach of duty, the court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claimant was regularly exposed to damaging noise levels during his work with the defendants. That threshold was not met in this case.

The court emphasised that it could not determine liability on the basis of broad assumptions or typical exposure scenarios. Without clear evidence addressing what tasks were carried out, which tools were used, and the frequency and duration of their use, the claimant was unable to demonstrate that his exposure exceeded levels that would amount to a breach of duty. The claim was therefore dismissed.

Commentary

This decision provides a clear reminder that the burden of proof in NIHL claims rests firmly with the claimant. While expert evidence plays an important role in assisting the court, it cannot bridge evidential gaps where the underlying factual account is insufficiently detailed.

For insurers and defendants, the judgment reinforces the importance of scrutinising the factual foundations of NIHL claims at an early stage. Where claimant witness evidence is vague or heavily reliant on generalised descriptions of roles or industries, there may be real difficulty in establishing exposure to the requisite standard.

The judgment also aligns with the recent High Court decision in Dilks v Secretary of State [2026] EWHC 146, confirming that evidential uncertainty falls on the party bearing the burden of proof. Claimants cannot rely on generalised or hypothetical exposure estimates to make good deficiencies in their evidence.

Ultimately, the case underlines that successful NIHL claims require clear, specific and credible evidence of exposure. For insurers, it offers further support for robustly defending claims where that evidential threshold has not been met.