header-logo header-logo

PI discount rate debate

15 September 2017
Issue: 7761 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Law Society wants research into claimant investment behaviour

Further research into claimants’ attitudes to investment risk is needed before the personal injury discount rate is changed, the Law Society has said.

Last week, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said it would recalculate the rate after its consultation found serious injury claimants take more risks with investment than the law assumes.

Ministers proposed setting the rate by reference to ‘low risk’ investments, rather than the current assumption that claimants make ‘very low risk’ investments. They proposed regular reviews, at least every three years, and creating an independent expert panel to help the Lord Chancellor carry out the review.

The rate is used to predict investment return in order to calculate how much compensation is awarded to serious injury victims. It was reduced from 2.5% to -0.75% in February this year by the previous Lord Chancellor, Liz Truss.

Many claimant lawyers welcomed the move at the time, although insurers warned it would cost the NHS substantially more in payouts.

Under the proposed system, the current rate would be in the region of 0% to 1%, David Lidington, the Lord Chancellor, said.

Law Society President Joe Egan said he welcomed regular reviews and the inclusion of an independent panel of experts, but called on the MoJ to ‘commission further and more in-depth research into claimant investment behaviour to confirm existing base assumptions’.

Peter Todd, solicitor at Hodge Jones and Allen, said: ‘While many claimants succeed in their investment risks, inevitably some will fail, and will now no longer have a guaranteed safe, secure and dignified future.’

However, Mark Burton, partner at insurance firm Kennedys, said: ‘It’s absolutely right that the discount rate should properly reflect real-world investment behaviours and financial returns.

‘The current rate based on ILGS results in significant overcompensation, if claimants are securing better returns from low-risk mixed portfolios.’

 
Issue: 7761 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
back-to-top-scroll