header-logo header-logo

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

PI discount rate finally reviewed

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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Global finance group strengthened by returning partner in London

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

NEWS
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
back-to-top-scroll