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

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