Court of Appeal agrees to re-think its direction in Simmons v Castle
The Court of Appeal is to re-think its directions on the proposed 10% rise in damages.
Following an application by the Association of British Insurers (ABI), it has agreed to re-open the landmark case of Simmons v Castle [2012] EWCA Civ 1039, in which Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, instructed the judiciary to implement a 10% increase in damages.
Delivering judgment in the case, which involved a motorcycle accident, Lord Judge said: “We take this opportunity to declare that, with effect from 1 April 2013, the proper level of general damages for (i) pain, suffering and loss of amenity in respect of personal injury, (ii) nuisance, (iii) defamation and (iv) all other torts which cause suffering, inconvenience or distress to individuals, will be 10% higher than previously.”
The 10% rise was originally proposed by Lord Justice Jackson in his review of civil litigation costs in 2009, and was due to come into effect in April, alongside other Jackson reforms introduced in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The rise in damages is not included in the Act.
James Dalton, head of motor and liability insurance at the ABI, says: “The effect of the Simmons decision is to give the 10% increase a retrospective effect. This represents a significant departure from government policy and, left unchallenged, is likely to lead to increases in car insurance premiums and employers’ liability premiums.
“The insurance industry is determined to reduce unnecessary costs and to resist this decision, which is why we are pleased that the court has agreed with the ABI’s submission to re-open the case.”
An Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) spokesperson says: “We can confirm that the ABI has sent us details of its application, as instructed by the Court of Appeal. We now have to decide whether we would like to make submissions, and this is something which we are considering at the moment.”
Writing for NLJ, barrister Kate Parker of Civitas Law says: “The issue is not as clear and simple as may first appear and uncertainty is likely to persist until there is some appellate point. [Simmons] throws up issues that both claimant and defendant lawyers must be alert to
from now, not simply from April 2013.”
