An application by the Minister for Defence, Mr Smith, to adjourn more than 200 Army deafness cases until October was rejected by the High Court yesterday.
In his judgment refusing the adjournment, Mr Justice Johnson said Mr Smith was "brave" to come to court. It appeared "for the first time in the last number of years" that someone was taking an active interest in the problem, which was recognised in 1993, he said.
However, there was still no definite proposal to deal with the matter, the judge added.
He also said that, despite "somewhat hysterical reporting" of the cost of the claims, the reality was "all guesswork". The State has suggested the cost could be as high as £1.5 billion.
In February, Mr Smith had secured an adjournment of cases until after Easter and had sought the further adjournment to allow the Government time to consider options for dealing with thousands of cases pending before the courts.
Mr Justice Johnson said yesterday he was refusing to adjourn the cases to October. But he would allow a three-week adjournment to allow ear, nose and throat specialists study an expert group report, known as the "Green Book", which deals with deafness standards, to see if they could agree on a standard for measuring hearing loss. If they could agree, hearings could be speeded up, the judge said.
The Green Book was compiled by an expert group established by the Department of Health and published two weeks ago.
Six Army deafness cases a day had been listed for hearing before the High Court as from yesterday. The judge said he would deal with any cases which were urgent.
The Minister had come to court on Monday to give evidence in support of his application for an adjournment.
Lawyers representing several soldier claimants strongly opposed the application.
At the present rate of hearings, it could take more than 17 years to dispose of the actions. The State has claimed the total cost could amount to £1.5 billion and cause a budgetary crisis. It has also warned that "significant tax hikes" might be necessary, in a worst-case scenario, to meet the bill.
The adjournment of the cases in February was granted to allow the expert group to produce its report and for judgment to be given in the Gardiner case, which, it was believed, could have a bearing on other cases.
In his judgment on the Minister's application for a further adjournment, Mr Justice Johnson said there were two reasons preferred for the application.
The first was the budgetary effect of the claims on the country and that the general good should take precedence over the rights of the individual. The second was a desire to introduce some form of commonly-accepted treatment so that those now before the court would be treated like those coming later. The Minister had not been specific.
The judge said he thought an alteration in the status quo was contemplated in one form or another unless the inertia that appeared over the last number of years was again to preside. He thought it was the intention of the Department that the status quo be altered.
Referring to the fact that 24 cases a week were now listed, he said this was as a result of the Department changing its attitude, at the end of January, to liability. It was entitled to do that.
It had been pointed out by an official of the Department of Finance that as a result less than one quarter of the budgetary allowance would be required to deal with the awards, the judge noted.
Therefore, the question of there being financial embarrassment to the Government or the country should the adjournment be refused did not "hold water". Despite the "somewhat hysterical reporting" of the potential cost, the reality, as the official fairly indicated, was all guesswork. Mr Justice Johnson said the common good was a factor to be dealt with by the legislature and executive. But there was also the right of the individual. Each individual plaintiff was an individual citizen of this country and entitled individually to have their rights vindicated by the courts. That, to his mind, was the most important aspect of the case.
The judge thanked the Minister for coming to give evidence and undergo some rigorous cross-examination. What the Minister did was brave and it was right that he should stand up and be counted, the judge said.
It appeared for the first time in the last number of years that someone was taking an active interest in dealing with the problem, which was recognised in 1993. But however grateful he was to the Minister for coming to court, the fact was that there was no proposal of any definite nature as to what might happen.
Cases had been before the court for a number of years and to his mind the balance of the overall good was that cases should go on subject to one matter, the judge said.
He noted that, since the cases started, it had not been the lawyers who had caused delays. There had been continuous debate between different sections of the medical profession about definitions and standards of normality and of hearing loss.
The Green Book had been produced after every ENT surgeon in the country had been canvassed. He did not know if all the expert witnesses in the cases had had an opportunity to read that book yet or whether they agreed with its contents.
If they did agree, it would save an enormous amount of time in dealing with and disposing of cases. For that reason, he proposed to adjourn the matter for three weeks to enable expert witnesses to be circulated with the book.
Mr Justice Johnson allowed unavoidable costs to plaintiffs in respect of cases due to be heard this week.