header-logo header-logo

Where do we stand?

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

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll