header-logo header-logo

20 March 2019
Issue: 7833 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail

Discount rate review announced

Current ‘unduly harsh’ rate under government scrutiny

The Ministry of Justice has begun its long-awaited review of the personal injury discount rate—the crucial percentage that determines the amount of damages payable where claimants have serious injuries.

David Gauke MP, the lord chancellor, announced the immediate start of the review this week, in a statement to the London Stock Exchange. Under the terms of the Civil Liability Act 2018, the lord chancellor must determine whether to change or keep the existing rate within 140 days of the start of the review, by 5 August 2019.

The rate is used to assess the expected rate of return on investment that claimants with serious injuries can expect over their lifetime. Historically, the rate assumed a cautious claimant who invested in low-risk index-linked government stocks (ILGS).

In February 2017, Liz Truss MP, the then lord chancellor, controversially reduced the rate from 2.5% to -0.75% to take account of poorly performing ILGS.

The Medical Protection Society expressed fears that the cost of clinical negligence claims would become ‘unsustainable’ for the NHS. However, claimant lawyers said the rate had been set too high for 16 years, saving insurers huge amounts and under-compensating claimants. The government promised a speedy review.

Subsequent government research found that claimants tend to make riskier investments than assumed and suggested draft legislation to change the way the rate is set, proposing that an expert panel advise the lord chancellor.

Brett Dixon, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, said: ‘I hope the lord chancellor will make his decision based on the very real needs of people who suffer catastrophic, life-changing injuries through no fault of their own.

‘It is also important to remember that compensation for very serious injuries can sometimes be paid by instalments (periodical payment orders (PPOs)). The need to address barriers to that system is now urgent.’

Anthony Baker, Forum of Insurance Lawyers (FOIL) vice president, said the current rate was ‘unduly harsh on the NHS, public purse, motorists generally and insurers’.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll