The Court of Appeal confirmed this week that the pain, suffering and loss of amenity aspect of compensation in non tariff cases must be assessed on common law principles.
It upheld the county court’s ruling that a deduction should be made in mixed injury cases to avoid any risk of over-compensation—but omitted to set out how that deduction will be made.
Brett Dixon, secretary of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) which intervened in the appeal, along with the Motor Accident Solicitors Society (MASS), said: ‘We welcome the fact the court confirmed the crucial point of principle that full damages must be paid for non-tariff injuries.
‘The principle of full compensation takes precedence when identifying any overlap in the two types of damages, and this addresses the serious risk of under-compensation. But allowing any deduction of damages in mixed injury cases is not welcome as it risks undercompensating victims of negligence when they are already subject to reduced damages because of the whiplash tariff, which we have always argued is grossly unfair.
‘And the fact the court failed to set out how the level of deduction should be established will subject injured people to more uncertainty.’
Lubna Shuja, president of the Law Society, said: ‘Solicitors working in the personal injury space, and their clients, would welcome further guidance about how these damages are to be calculated.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=a9d8e4bf_1)
