header-logo header-logo

Discount rate change delights & dismays

17 July 2019
Issue: 7849 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail
The personal injury discount rate has been changed, delighting claimant lawyers but prompting insurance lawyers to express concern about the cost to public bodies

The new rate of -0.25%, announced by the Lord Chancellor David Gauke this week, is effective from 5 August 2019. The discount rate is used to calculate the large lump sum compensation awarded to victims of life-changing injuries, and reflects the interest they can expect to earn on investments.

The decision to change the current rate of - 0.75% follows a Call to Evidence launched by the Ministry of Justice in December 2018. The rate was lowered from 2.5% in 2017, leading to concerns defendants, particularly the NHS, were having to pay out too much money.

According to the Ministry, a 30-year-old male with annual financial costs of £50,000 would receive £2.9355m under the current rate, and £2.56525m under the new rate, a difference of £370,250.

Lord Chancellor Gauke said: ‘It is vital victims of life-changing injuries receive the correct compensation―I am certain this is the most balanced and fair approach following an extensive consultation.’

Jonathan Wheeler, managing partner at Bolt Burdon Kemp, said the government had ‘resisted insurers’ calls for the most seriously injured to make risky investments to maintain or “top up” their damages.’

However, Tony Cawley, Clyde & Co partner and member of the Forum of Insurance Lawyers (FOIL), said: ‘It is very disappointing that the numerous representations made by FOIL and the insurance industry have failed to be taken into consideration.

‘Although the Lord Chancellor refers to the new statutory test in the announcement, FOIL does not believe that the new rate reflects how claimants actually invest their damages. [This] new confirmed rate will be particularly concerning to the insurance market generally but also to many public bodies.’

Insurance firm Kennedys partners Mark Burton and Christopher Malla said: ‘The Ministry of Justice had previously signalled a likely outcome of between 0% and 1%.

‘In practice, serious injury cases have been settling at levels based on a positive rate coming into force. The announcement of a negative rate is therefore surprising.’ 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

HFW—Guy Marrison

HFW—Guy Marrison

Global aviation disputes practice boosted by London partner hire

Morrison Foerster—Jenny Galloway & Luke Rowland

Morrison Foerster—Jenny Galloway & Luke Rowland

Firm grows London practice with two partner promotions

Hogan Lovells—David Hansom

Hogan Lovells—David Hansom

Government contracts and procurement practice expands with London partner hire

NEWS
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
A construction defect claim in the Court of Appeal offers a sharp lesson in pleading discipline. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains how a catastrophically drafted schedule of loss derailed otherwise viable claims. Across the areas explored in this week's column, the message is consistent: clarity, economy and proper pleading matter more than ever
back-to-top-scroll