header-logo header-logo

PI discount rate finally reviewed

08 August 2012
Issue: 7526 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Government consults on discount rate after campaign by lawyers

The government has launched a long-awaited review of the personal injury discount rate, following a campaign by claimant lawyers.

Injured persons usually receive their compensation, intended to make up for future loss of earnings, in a one-off lump-sum payment. Claimants often invest this money, so the courts make adjustments to ensure the claimant is not over-compensated.

In making this calculation, the courts follow guidance laid down by the House of Lords in Wells v Wells [1999] 1 AC 345. They apply a discount rate of 2.5%, although courts may decide a different rate is appropriate in individual cases.

This rate was set by the Lord Chancellor in 2001, under s 1 of the Damages Act 1996, and is based on predicted yields from index-linked government gilts. However, yields from these have been declining for years and claimant lawyers have argued that the rate is now set too high.

The Ministry of Justice consultation Damages Act 1996: The Discount Rate, published last week, proposes two main alternative positions. These are: to use a gilts-based calculation using modern data; and to move from gilts to a mixed portfolio of appropriate investments using current data.

Christopher Malla, a partner at Kennedys, says: “Any reduction to the discount rate will have a significant impact on damages paid by our clients who are compensators of a broad spectrum of personal injury claims, particularly on the high-value claims which can already attract multi-million-pound awards. It is imperative that all parties with a stake in this issue come together during this long-awaited consultation to achieve a fair and balanced outcome.”

The consultation will end on 23 October 2012.

Last year, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers launched a judicial review on the issue, but it stalled after the justice secretary promised a consultation.

Issue: 7526 / Categories: Legal News
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