header-logo header-logo

27 November 2024
Issue: 8096 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury , Compensation
printer mail-detail

Whiplash boost fails to impress

A 15% increase in the tariff for soft tissue injuries ‘is not enough’, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) has warned.

The Lord Chancellor Shabana Mahmood announced the rise last week in response both to Consumer Price Index inflation since 2021, when whiplash reforms took effect and tariffs were introduced, and forecasted inflation to May 2027, when the next statutory review is likely to take place.

Under the Civil Liability Act 2018, the Lord Chancellor sets a tariff for whiplash injuries of up to two years in duration and makes regulations to do so, and is required to review those regulations within three years of implementation. The Act also banned offers to settle claims without medical evidence.

Mahmood kept the existing split structure of whiplash only and whiplash plus minor psychological injury tariffs, and the allowable judicial uplift of 20% of the tariff award for exceptional injuries or circumstances. She made no change to the definitions of what constitutes appropriate medical evidence and who may provide it prior to an offer to settle being made.

However, APIL president Kim Harrison said: ‘Following this review injured people will receive less compensation in real terms than they did in 2021 when the tariff was introduced.

‘If the Lord Chancellor were simply to increase the actual tariff, as introduced, in line with inflation using the Consumer Price Index, rather than making convoluted predictions about future inflation, the increase to damages in the tariff would be 22%. Increases in inflation have been eroding injured people’s damages since the tariff was introduced, a tariff which was set at an insulting, arbitrary level to begin with.

‘The facts are that since the tariff came into effect, the number of claims has plummeted, the cost of injury claims to insurers has nosedived, and yet motor premiums have continued to rise.’

Issue: 8096 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury , Compensation
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Newcastle & North of England Law Society—Lesley Fairclough

Newcastle & North of England Law Society—Lesley Fairclough

Ward Hadaway partner becomes bicentennial president following regional merger

Devonshires—four promotions

Devonshires—four promotions

Firm promotes four senior associates to partner in annual round

Fieldfisher—John McElroy & Daniel Hayward

Fieldfisher—John McElroy & Daniel Hayward

Co-heads of dispute resolution practice appointed alongside partner promotions

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll