header-logo header-logo

PI discount rate debate

15 September 2017
Issue: 7761 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Law Society wants research into claimant investment behaviour

Further research into claimants’ attitudes to investment risk is needed before the personal injury discount rate is changed, the Law Society has said.

Last week, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said it would recalculate the rate after its consultation found serious injury claimants take more risks with investment than the law assumes.

Ministers proposed setting the rate by reference to ‘low risk’ investments, rather than the current assumption that claimants make ‘very low risk’ investments. They proposed regular reviews, at least every three years, and creating an independent expert panel to help the Lord Chancellor carry out the review.

The rate is used to predict investment return in order to calculate how much compensation is awarded to serious injury victims. It was reduced from 2.5% to -0.75% in February this year by the previous Lord Chancellor, Liz Truss.

Many claimant lawyers welcomed the move at the time, although insurers warned it would cost the NHS substantially more in payouts.

Under the proposed system, the current rate would be in the region of 0% to 1%, David Lidington, the Lord Chancellor, said.

Law Society President Joe Egan said he welcomed regular reviews and the inclusion of an independent panel of experts, but called on the MoJ to ‘commission further and more in-depth research into claimant investment behaviour to confirm existing base assumptions’.

Peter Todd, solicitor at Hodge Jones and Allen, said: ‘While many claimants succeed in their investment risks, inevitably some will fail, and will now no longer have a guaranteed safe, secure and dignified future.’

However, Mark Burton, partner at insurance firm Kennedys, said: ‘It’s absolutely right that the discount rate should properly reflect real-world investment behaviours and financial returns.

‘The current rate based on ILGS results in significant overcompensation, if claimants are securing better returns from low-risk mixed portfolios.’

 
Issue: 7761 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll