header-logo header-logo

Lawyers strike back on whiplash Bill

22 March 2018
Issue: 7786 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Government has prioritised premiums over compassion, solicitors argue

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) unveiled sweeping reforms to whiplash claims and the discount rate this week in its Civil Liability Bill.

Justice Secretary David Gauke said the Bill would reduce the ‘unacceptably high’ number of whiplash claims, cut motorists’ insurance premiums by about £35 per year (by saving insurers about £1bn) and make savings for the NHS.

The Bill introduces fixed amounts of compensation for whiplash claims, potentially making them uneconomic for lawyers to pursue, bans payouts without medical evidence and changes the personal injury discount rate calculation.

In February 2017, the discount rate (the percentage used to adjust lump sums awarded for future loss) was reduced from 2.5% to -0.75%, increasing the size of awards. Under the Bill, the rate will be set on a ‘low risk’ rather than a ‘very low risk’ basis; it will be reviewed within 90 days of the legislation coming into force and thereafter at least every three years; and an independent expert panel chaired by the government actuary will advise the Lord Chancellor on the setting of the rate.

Julian Chamberlayne, partner at Stewarts Law and chairman of the Forum of Complex Injury Solicitors, said: ‘We are still in the dark on the question of what proportion of claimants does the government consider it acceptable to go under compensated as a result of the new “low risk” investment approach. All we are told is that they accept the median approach would be too much under compensation. But is it okay for 10%, 20% or even 30% to have their compensation run out early and fall back on whatever help they can get from the State?’

However, he added that it was difficult to see how the rate could now be set higher than 0% once tax, inflation and investment charges are factored in.

Brett Dixon, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL), said the government had sacrificed ‘any concept of fairness or compassion or help for genuinely injured people’ in order to cut car insurance premiums.

James Bell, partner at Hodge Jones & Allen, said: ‘We need to remember that seriously injured people, many with long term care needs, were undercompensated between 2001-2017 when the discount rate was set at the insurer-friendly figure of 2.5%.

‘The insurers made hay while the sun shone for 16 years. So, it is very disappointing to see the government rush through this legislation after only one year of the rate being set at -0.75%.’

Issue: 7786 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
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