header-logo header-logo

Putting the new discount rate to the test

07 February 2025 / Julian Chamberlayne
Issue: 8103 / Categories: Features , Personal injury , Damages
printer mail-detail
207250
Julian Chamberlayne reviews the new personal injury discount rate & highlights some potential weak spots
  • The personal injury discount rate has increased from -0.25% to +0.5%. For the first time, the rate was decided with reliance on a detailed report from an expert panel.
  • Certain elements of the decision-making could be vulnerable to challenge by judicial review, including the assumptions made around earnings inflation and the risk profiles of assumed investment portfolios.
  • It is also questionable whether the decision-making in setting the rate is truly consistent with the ‘full compensation’ principle.

On 11 January 2025, the personal injury discount rate (PIDR) for England and Wales increased from -0.25% to +0.5%. This was the first occasion on which this rate was set under the Civil Liability Act 2018 (CLA 2018) with reliance on a detailed report from an expert panel, who themselves were informed by an appended analytical report from the Government Actuary’s Department (GAD) and by economic scenario generator (ESG) modelling understood to have been

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll