header-logo header-logo

17 May 2012 / Katherine Deal KC
Issue: 7514 / Categories: Features , Damages , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Where do we stand?

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll