Share
New +0.5% personal injury discount rates announced in Northern Ireland and Scotland
On 26 September 2024 the Government Actuary’s reports covering Scotland and Northern Ireland confirmed that the personal injury discount rate (PIDR) of +0.5% will apply to both jurisdictions. The rates came into effect on 27 September 2024. This is welcome news for insurers and compensators.
The previous rate for Northern Ireland of -1.5% was set in March 2022 in accordance with the provisions of the Damages (Return on Investment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 which was disappointing for insurers and other compensators who hoped for an increase of more than 0.25% on the interim rate of -1.75%. The previous rate in Scotland was set in September 2019 at -0.75%.
The Minister for Justice has accepted the recommendations of an expert group that there should be no change to the discount rate in Ireland. The discount rate will continue at 1% for future care costs and 1.5% for future financial loss.
The Minister has also accepted the group’s recommendations that, in the short term:
- The Periodic Payment Order (PPO) indexation rate should be based on a combination of the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP) and Annual Rate of Change (ARC) in nominal hourly health earnings
- The amount of a yearly periodic payment payable should be based on a PPO indexation rate comprising 80% of average Annual Rate of Change in nominal hourly health earnings added to 20% of the HICP.
PIDR in England and Wales
There is a different timetable for the statutory review in England and Wales which is due to be completed by 11 January 2025.
We have also identified PIDR as a key update in the Healthcare section.
New government bills
Mental health bill
The Bill aims to modernise the Mental Health Act 1983 to ensure that patients have greater choice, autonomy, rights and support, and to make sure all patients are treated with dignity and respect throughout their treatment.
This will include revising the detention criteria so that people can only be detained if they pose a risk of serious harm either to themselves or to others. It will remove police stations and prisons as places of safety and provide offenders with severe mental health problems to access the care they need as quickly and early as possible.
Case developments
Child case considered by the court to require costs management
PXT (A Child) v Atere-Roberts [06.06.24]
The High Court judge held that a road traffic accident case involving a 12 year old claimant should be subject to costs management. This was due to the “very serious and real concerns that without costs budgeting the costs will be excessive and unreasonable”. Although costs management does not automatically apply to claims such as this, and despite the medical prognosis not yet being finalised by the paediatric neurology expert, the judge ordered the costs budget to be provided within six weeks.
Expert evidence in fundamentally dishonest claim
Williams-Henry v Associated British Ports Holdings Ltd [10.04.24]
The claimant, who sustained a moderately severe brain injury when she fell off a pier in Port Talbot, was found by the court to have been fundamentally dishonest. The judge found that one expert came close to being “an advocate for the claimant” and the claimant’s dishonesty led to many more experts’ reports. One expert was criticised for asserting in her CV that her split of instructions was 60% for claimants and 40% for defendants, but accepted in cross-examination that the true figure was 80% to 90% for claimants.
Overall, the evidence of the experts was unhelpful to the court as it relied on the claimant's dishonest self report. Reinforcing the need to carefully cross-examine experts in conference, one expert eventually acknowledged that she had just accepted everything the claimant had told her.
Player-to-player personal injury sports claims on the rise
This is the latest case in respect of liability for sporting injuries. In this case an amateur rugby player was found liable for injury he caused when “playing an opponent” without the ball.
There are several key takeaways from this case, namely:
- Amateur players are not exempt from findings of negligence in the context of sport
- Neither intention to cause serious injury nor recklessness are required for liability to be established (although recklessness was discussed only on the facts of this case) and the ordinary test of negligence will still apply
- Breaching sporting rules will not necessarily mean negligent behaviour but will be considered by the court
- It is important to obtain any video evidence of sporting matches as soon as possible as this will be a beneficial evidential tool
- Ensure that those competing in sport have appropriate insurance arrangements in place.
Public sector
United Kingdom