header-logo header-logo

Discount rate to change again

08 September 2017
Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

The government is to recalculate the personal injury discount rate again, after a Ministry of Justice (MoJ) consultation found serious injury claimants take more risks with investment than the law assumes.

The rate is used to predict investment return in order to calculate how much compensation is awarded to serious injury victims.

It was reduced from 2.5% to -0.75% in February this year by the previous Lord Chancellor, Liz Truss. Many claimant lawyers welcomed the move at the time, although critics warned it would cost the NHS substantially more in payouts.

The MoJ has since carried out a consultation. Ministers this week proposed draft legislation that would set the rate by reference to ‘low risk’ investments, rather than the current assumption that claimants make ‘very low risk’ investments. They also proposed reviewing the rate more regularly, at least every three years, and creating an independent expert panel to help the Lord Chancellor carry out the review.

David Lidington, the Lord Chancellor, said: ‘We want to introduce a new framework based on how claimants actually invest, as well as making sure the rate is reviewed fairly and regularly.

‘While it is difficult to provide an estimate, based on currently available information if the new system were to be applied today the rate might be in the region of 0% to 1%.’

Mark Burton, partner at insurance firm Kennedys, said: ‘It’s absolutely right that the discount rate should properly reflect real-world investment behaviours and financial returns.

‘The current rate based on ILGS results in significant overcompensation, if claimants are securing better returns from low-risk mixed portfolios. At the claims level, both claimants and compensators have in any event been pragmatically negotiating settlements within the 0% to 1% range since February, regardless of the prevailing -0.75% rate, in anticipation of further reforms.

‘The new methodology may therefore lead to a new rate within a similar range to that widely adopted by the market anyway. The more rigorous methodology proposed in the draft reforms, including periodic reviews and independent expertise, will hopefully avoid future controversy and ensure a fairer process.’

However, Peter Todd, solicitor at Hodge Jones and Allen, who advised the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) on the discount rate for a number of years, said: ‘Whilst many claimants succeed in their investment risks, inevitably some will fail, and will now no longer have a guaranteed safe, secure and dignified future.

‘The Conservative government has prioritised the insurance industry’s profits over the secure and dignified future of injured people. It remains to be seen whether they can find a Parliamentary majority to enact the proposed new legislation.’

Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Head of corporate promoted to director

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Firm strengthens international arbitration team with key London hire

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

FCA contentious financial regulation lawyer joins the team as of counsel

NEWS
Social media giants should face tortious liability for the psychological harms their platforms inflict, argues Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers in this week’s NLJ
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024—once heralded as a breakthrough—has instead plunged leaseholders into confusion, warns Shabnam Ali-Khan of Russell-Cooke in this week’s NLJ
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has now confirmed that offering a disabled employee a trial period in an alternative role can itself be a 'reasonable adjustment' under the Equality Act 2010: in this week's NLJ, Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve analyses the evolving case law
Caroline Shea KC and Richard Miller of Falcon Chambers examine the growing judicial focus on 'cynical breach' in restrictive covenant cases, in this week's issue of NLJ
Ian Gascoigne of LexisNexis dissects the uneasy balance between open justice and confidentiality in England’s civil courts, in this week's NLJ. From public hearings to super-injunctions, he identifies five tiers of privacy—from fully open proceedings to entirely secret ones—showing how a patchwork of exceptions has evolved without clear design
back-to-top-scroll