header-logo header-logo

17 July 2019
Issue: 7849 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail

Discount rate change delights & dismays

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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll