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

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
Pension sharing orders (PSOs) have quietly reached their 25th anniversary, yet remain stubbornly underused. Writing in NLJ this week, Joanna Newton of Stowe Family Law argues that this neglect risks long-term financial harm, particularly for women
A school ski trip, a confiscated phone and an unauthorised hotel-room entry culminated in a pupil’s permanent exclusion. In this week's issue of NLJ, Nicholas Dobson charts how the Court of Appeal upheld the decision despite acknowledged procedural flaws
Is a suspect’s state of mind a ‘fact’ capable of triggering adverse inferences? Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Smith of Corker Binning examines how R v Leslie reshapes the debate
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
back-to-top-scroll