header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
17 May 2012 / Katherine Deal KC
Issue: 7514 / Categories: Features , Damages , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Where do we stand?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Katherine Deal assesses the current stance on discount rates

Scenario: a claimant aged 30 suffers a serious accident and loses his lower leg. He is 25% liable for the accident and does not want an order for periodical payments because no annual payment will compensate him for the actual expense to which he will be put in the future. He would rather take his chances in the market and invest a lump sum to provide him with sufficient return year on year. Nor is the defendant amenable to prolonging the case—it is quite happy to make a lump sum payment and close its file.
Our claimant’s care needs are costed at £20,000 per annum and will continue for life. Using the conventional discount rate of 2.5% and the 7th edition of the Ogden Tables, the multiplier will be 29.60, which will result in an award for him reflecting his contributory negligence of £444,000. But a discount rate of 0.5% would give a multiplier of 48.68, and a total award of £730,200. Should

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll