header-logo header-logo

Discount rate reset cuts long-term lump sum damages

04 December 2024
Issue: 8097 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury , Damages , Compensation
printer mail-detail
The Lord Chancellor Shabana Mahmood has raised the personal injury discount rate (PIDR)—used by the courts to calculate lump sum awards for long-term injuries—from -0.25% to 0.5%.

The change, announced this week, is effective from 11 January 2025, and matches rates set in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

While the independent expert panel advising the Lord Chancellor recommended a rate between 0.5% and 1%, Mahmood considered ‘the likelihood of under-compensation with all rates above 0.5% to be too high’.

At 0.5%, ‘the three core claimants modelled will have, at least, an approximately 55% chance of receiving full compensation or more,’ she said, in her statement of reasons for the change.

‘They also each have no more than a 25% chance of significant under-compensation. At this rate, no core claimant is more likely to be undercompensated than over-compensated, which I consider an appropriate outcome.’

According to the Medical Defence Union (MDU), the change could save the NHS millions of pounds in compensation payments.

David Pranklin, MDU head of claims, said: ‘In recent years, changes in the PIDR have led to a huge increase in the cost of clinical negligence claims.

‘This has had serious implications for the NHS, and for MDU members who have been shouldered with the increased costs. This change will provide some relief in the current difficult medico-legal climate.’

However, Gordon Dalyell, treasurer of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, said: ‘Even under the current rate of -0.25 per cent, we know that a third of people with life-changing injuries will not meet the costs of their necessary care and support.

‘Any increase in the discount rate makes it more likely that more injured people will be undercompensated. People with catastrophic injuries are particularly susceptible to the rising costs of living we’re seeing across the board, which includes increases to carer wages and the cost of specialist aids and equipment.’

Issue: 8097 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury , Damages , Compensation
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
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
back-to-top-scroll