p. 1

motoring news welcome to `headlight dolmans solicitors motoring news bulletin in this edition we cover case summaries consumer hire agreements w v veolia environmental services uk plc [2011 contempt of court edward william nield another v graham jeffrey loveday another [2011 costs trevor michael fox v foundation piling ltd [2011 kevin fallows v harkers transport [2011 excessive braking valerie steadman v 1 london united busways ltd 2 matthew sala [2011 fixed cost approval hearings gw by his litigation friend da v bw [2011 ta by his litigation friend ma v rp [2011 motorcycle liability burton v evitt ca [2011 smith v kempson qb [2011 valuation of multiple injuries sadler v filipiak another ca [2011 vehicle defect 1 divya 2 madan 3 joshi 4 sanganee 5 kandriah v 1 toyo tire rubber co ltd t/a toyo tires of japan 2 paranirupasingham [2011 autumn 2011 edition articles the `need for credit hire ogden update headlight

[close]

p. 2

motoring news w v veolia environmental services uk plc [2011 the claimant sought to recover credit hire charges in the sum of £138,000 from the defendant the claimant s vehicle was a 21 year old bentley valued at £16,000 the garage arranged for the provision of a credit hire car whilst the claimant s vehicle was being repaired the claimant requested a prestige vehicle to project the right image in his business and at the golf club the hire company provided a modern bentley at a rate of £860 per day the claimant could not have afforded the non credit daily rate of £485 per day the claimant signed the original contract at his home which included insurance for the recovery of the hire charges but limited the hire period to 85 days the garage took 135 days to complete the repairs a second hire agreement was therefore sent to the claimant by post which the claimant signed and returned the defendant submitted that the hire amount of the hire charges from the insurance policy provided by the hire company and paid the hire charges in excess of the indemnity limit of £100,000 thereafter the claimant submitted that the question of unenforceability under the regulations was irrelevant once the charges had been paid the court was required to determine 1 whether the claimant was required by his duty to mitigate to challenge the charges under the regulations 2 whether the regulations were applicable 3 the extent to which the charges were recoverable in light of the claimant s impecuniosity charges were irrecoverable by virtue of the cancellation of contracts made in the consumer s home or place of work etc regulations 2008 the claimant claimed the www.dolmans.co.uk the court held that the claimant had mitigated his damage by hiring a car becoming liable to hire charges and then paying them there was no risk of double recovery the claim was the same as if the claimant had paid the charges from his own funds the claimant was entitled to recover the credit hire charges in their entirety the effect of the regulations was that the hire company could not enforce its first hire contract against the claimant as the claimant had signed the contract at home without the requisite notice under regulation 72 it was unenforceable regulation 76 1

[close]

p. 3

motoring news the applicants brought contempt the regulations could not however defeat proceedings on the basis that the first the second hire contract as it had been sent by post on the evidence the claimant was respondent s claim was inflated and impecunious for the purposes of lagden v dishonest the second respondent admitted her contempt accepting that she knew that o connor [2003 ukhl 64 and had no choice parts of her statement were false when she but to take the credit hire car since he could signed the same the first respondent not have been expected to pay the non credit submitted that he did not know what he was rate it was a fair point that the verifying when he signed his statements impecuniosity exception was not designed for the drivers of bentleys but in the instant case the claimant s own bentley was worth no more than a modest modern car edward william nield another v graham jeffrey loveday another [2011 the first respondent was found to be guilty the first respondent had brought a personal of contempt of court the surveillance injury claim against the first applicant footage showed him to be nowhere near the following a road traffic accident housebound invalid he had claimed to be a letter from the first respondent s purported employer had been forged by him or the second respondent but it did not follow with certainty that he had not recommenced work for that employer on the day of the accident the second applicant insurer had admitted it was held that the first respondent had liability and proceedings therefore related misled his solicitor who drafted his witness only to quantum both respondents had statements it was clear that he knew exactly provided statements in support of the first what his witness statements said as he had respondent s claim verified by statements of made numerous handwritten annotations on truth however surveillance footage drafts of the same his evidence that he had appeared to show that the first respondent not read what he signed was not true both was far more active and able than his claim respondents knew that the risks of signing suggested he therefore settled his claim at something they did not believe included a substantially reduced sum and consented to being imprisoned for contempt because their pay the applicants costs which far solicitor had warned them in writing outweighed his damages www.dolmans.co.uk 2

[close]

p. 4

motoring news withdrawn in november 2009 the respondent making a new offer of £31,702.53 this offer was accepted and the court held that the respondent had been the successful party in respect of the period after october 2008 the appellant was therefore ordered to pay the respondent s costs in respect of the said period the judge at first instance held that even if he was wrong about the successful party the appellant s conduct warranted him paying the respondent s costs from october 2008 by the time the appellant s appeal was heard both parties had agreed that he should be regarded as the successful party the only issue was whether the appellant s conduct had been such to justify a departure from the general rule under cpr rule 44.32 that the losing party should pay the entire trevor michael fox v foundation piling costs of the action ltd [2011 on appeal it was held that parties were entitled to make calderbank offers outside the appellant had issued proceedings against the framework of part 36 of the cpr and that the respondent in april 2006 claiming the court s discretion on costs was wider damages in excess of £280,000 for where a party had made such an offer and compensation for personal injuries liability subsequently achieved a more advantageous was agreed but quantum remained in result dispute the respondent argued that the appellant had exaggerated his claim being in in a personal injury action the court of possession of appropriate video surveillance appeal held that the fact that the claimant evidence and that the medical evidence had won on some issues but lost on others suggested that the accident had merely was not normally a reason for depriving him accelerated preexisting degenerative of part of his costs moreover even the fact changes that the claimant had deliberately exaggerated his claim might not in certain in october 2008 the respondent offered to circumstances be a reason for depriving him settle the claim in the sum of £23,550.79 of his costs this offer was rejected and the said offer was the application was granted it was held that the second respondent deserved some credit for admitting her contempt and she benefited from several good character references she was given a 6 month sentence suspended for 18 months the first respondent was given a 9 month sentence and would be released unconditionally after 4½ months www.dolmans.co.uk 3

[close]

p. 5

motoring news in this case it was held on appeal that there was no justification for departing from the normal rule ie cpr rule 44.32 and the appellant was entitled to all his costs to be assessed on the standard basis in starting from the erroneous assumption that the respondent was the successful party it was held that the judge had exercised his discretion wrongly and it therefore fell to be reexercised by the court of appeal the central issue in terms of conduct was the appellant s alleged exaggeration of his claim however the judge had expressly declined to make any finding that the appellant was guilty of any misrepresentation and the court of appeal could not therefore substitute such a finding in the context of personal injury litigation where the claimant had a strong case on liability but quantum was inflated it was held that the defendant s remedy was to make a modest part 36 offer if the defendant failed to make a sufficient offer at the first opportunity he could not expect costs protection although different considerations might apply where the claimant had been proved to have been dishonest the appeal was allowed kevin fallows v harkers transport [2011 the claimant s car was damaged when one of the defendant s employees negligently collided with it the claimant was comprehensively insured with his insurance company who paid for the cost of repairs and then sought to recover those costs from the defendant s insurer by way of subrogation the claimant s insurance company had set up a wholly owned subsidiary company to undertake the repair of vehicles it insured which used subcontractors to carry out that work when the work on the claimant s vehicle had been carried out by the subcontractor the subsidiary company paid it and then invoiced the claimant s insurers a higher figure based on an increased hourly rate for labour a figure headed `sundry allowance and the cost of collecting and returning the vehicle there was also a vat discrepancy the cost of repairs was disputed by the defendant who contended that it was not liable to pay the extra charges added to the subcontractor s invoice it complained that www.dolmans.co.uk 4

[close]

p. 6

motoring news they had been concealed since the invoice stated that the costs of a subcontractor were nil which gave the impression that the repairs had been carried out by the subsidiary and would have been paid on trust the claimant s insurance company submitted that it had acted reasonably by using the subsidiary company and that there was no evidence that the price achieved was lower than the price which the claimant s insurance company could itself have achieved if it had negotiated directly with the subcontractor every insurer adopting the same procedure which would lead to an overall increase in the cost of minor motor repair claims on the evidence the claimant s insurers had failed to prove that the additional charges were caused by the defendant s negligence and not by its own commercial decision to employ an intermediary valerie steadman v 1 london united busways ltd 2 matthew sala [2011 the court was required to determine as a preliminary issue liability between the first defendant bus company and the second defendant car driver for personal injury sustained by the claimant when the bus on which she was a passenger had stopped suddenly it was held that the claimant had a duty to mitigate his loss the best evidence of the reasonable cost of repairs was the price which the subsidiary company was able to negotiate with the subcontractor the claimant s insurers had put forward no evidence to explain why it was reasonable for it to impose an intermediary company into the chain of transactions the effect of that arrangement was to pass on to the defendant some part of the administration expenses incurred by it in dealing with the claim thereby inflating the total repair costs there was not a single reported case in which the cost incurred by insurers of administering a claim had been allowed as part of a claimant s damages there were also sound policy reasons for rejecting the claimant s insurer s argument there would otherwise be nothing to stop www.dolmans.co.uk 5

[close]

p. 7

motoring news one of the main issues in both cases was the bus had been following a ferrari being whether or not the claimants solicitors driven by the second defendant along a busy could recover the costs of attending the road at rush hour the first defendant s infant approval hearings driver claimed that the second defendant suddenly braked hard using the hand brake the matter was heard by a circuit judge his so that his brake lights did not illuminate the bus driver was forced to perform an honour judge platt rather than a district judge specifically to give the unsuccessful emergency stop so as to avoid a collision and party a clear and unequivocal opportunity to as a result the claimant was thrown from her obtain a binding authoritative ruling on the seat struck her head on the internal bus issue which was criticised by hhj platt as structure and fell to the floor sustaining being one that was continuously being injuries which resulted in tetraplegia brought before the courts it was held that the second defendant had not braked heavily or abnormally and his the claimants representatives argued that as evidence that his practice was to drive as it is the court that decides whether or not to smoothly as possible for fuel economy was fix a hearing for a settlement figure to be accepted reducing his speed to allow a approved the claimant and/or the litigation vehicle to turn in front of him was an entirely friend are obliged to attend it was also normal manoeuvre when negotiating city submitted that in such circumstances it traffic the court held that it was would be unprofessional for a solicitor on inconceivable that the second defendant record as acting for the claimant to then not attend the settlement hearing or would have braked deliberately and found alternatively secure suitable representation that the bus driver had become impatient and irritated by the fact that the second thereat defendant had allowed two vehicles to move hhj platt highlighted the relevant rules as out in front of him the bus driver s actions being cpr 45.9 and 45.10 as readers will had caused him to make the emergency stop appreciate these relate to the predictive and the second defendant had not been costs regime which apply in road traffic negligent matters where damages fall below £10,000 gw by his litigation friend da v bw [2011 ta by his litigation friend ma v rp [2011 both of these cases involved minors and arose out of road traffic accidents there were infant approval hearings in both cases www.dolmans.co.uk 6

[close]

p. 8

motoring news that introduced a test of reasonableness in accordance with the predictive costs regime claimant solicitors are entitled to which would override the phrase necessarily fixed recoverable costs calculated in incurred accordance with cpr rule 45.91 and potentially counsel s fees in accordance with further the claimants representatives cpr rules 45.101 a and c the latter two argued that the phrase necessarily rules provide that the court may allow a claim incurred by reason of the claimant being a for counsel s fee provided the same has been child meant that whenever the court fixed an approval hearing the cost of instructing necessarily incurred by reason of the claimant counsel to attend the same must be a being a child or protected party disbursement that had been necessarily in accordance with the cpr there was quite incurred clearly the potential for the claimants solicitors in this case to recover counsel s fee the defendants contended that the words for attending the hearing provided they necessarily incurred should be given their could satisfy the requirement of necessity natural meaning and as such the costs of attending was not recoverable unless that attendance was necessary and which in the vast majority of cases was not necessary hhj platt confirmed that in his judgement the defendants argument was clearly correct hhj platt highlighted that the claimants argument had previously been unsuccessfully advanced by claimant the claimants representative relied on the solicitors in front of various district and circuit judges and that the general consensus fact that the new low value road traffic was that necessarily incurred should be protocol regime includes a specific provision read literally and there was therefore no for a fixed advocate s fee for attending a basis for allowing counsel s fees for attending hearing and that in cases where the agreed damages figure fell under £1,000 and the the infant settlement hearing in a predictive costs regime does not therefore straightforward case apply the court has the discretion to allow counsel s fee for attending the hearing accordingly the claimants representative submitted that there was clearly an inconsistency between the various costs regimes pertaining to road traffic accident cases and in order to negate the same the court should interpret cpr 45.101 as one www.dolmans.co.uk 7

[close]

p. 9

motoring news hhj platt also concluded that on the strict interpretation of cpr rule 45.102 c i it should also be proven that it was necessary for counsel to be instructed to prepare an advice on quantum before any fee in respect of the same became recoverable by the claimant s solicitor that said hhj platt did acknowledge that it was more commonly satisfied for counsel to provide such an advice hhj platt specifically stated that counsel s fees could not be said to have been necessarily incurred simply because it was in commercial terms more economic for a solicitor to instruct counsel the solicitor must either convince the court that it was necessary to instruct counsel or he/she must pay counsel s fees out of his/her fixed costs hhj platt criticised the fact that despite the same argument having been rejected time and time again claimant solicitors continued to advance the same hhj platt gave the claimants permission to appeal to the court of appeal the driver of the vehicle behind the defendant then saw a motorcycle being ridden by the claimant overtaking at the corner of his vehicle the claimant drove forwards and collided with the defendant s vehicle sustaining severe injuries at trial the judge found that the claimant was riding at an unsafe speed and in such a way that he could not deal with an emergency and was therefore negligent however the judge also found that it was the defendant s duty to move his car closer to and perhaps over the centre of the line in the road so that using his wing mirror he could have seen the claimant approaching his failure to do so meant that he was also causatively responsible for the accident burton v evitt ca [2011 on appeal it was held that as the size of the vehicle behind the defendant meant that he could not see clearly he should have inched out the defendant s appeal in respect of negligence was therefore unsuccessful the defendant appealed against a decision however it was held that the claimant s that he had been negligent and was one third responsible for a road traffic accident negligence was of such a high order that the involving him and the claimant the issue of blameworthiness of the claimant and defendant required greater analysis the defendant was driving his car in a queue of trial judge s apportionment was set aside and traffic and slowed down looked in his mirror replaced with an apportionment that the and saw nothing except a large vehicle claimant was 80 and the defendant 20 behind him he was almost at a standstill liable appeal allowed in part when be begun to turn right into a car park www.dolmans.co.uk 8

[close]

p. 10

motoring news smith v kempson qb [2011 the defendant approached a junction from which she intended to turn right onto a major road her view to the right was obstructed by parked vehicles the claimant motorcyclist was proceeding along the major road as a result of the parked vehicles he was obliged to travel on the wrong side of the road as the defendant emerged from the junction the claimant s motorcycle collided with her car at first instance the judge concluded that on the appeal failed the judge accepted that the trial judge had not made a specific finding of what it was that the defendant did which she should not have done or failed to do that which she should have done but in his judgement that did not preclude the trial judge from reaching a conclusion that the defendant failed to reach the high standard of care required it was open to a judge to conclude that a person has acted in breach of a standard of care even if the judge is unable to say or has not said precisely what action or omission constituted the fault sadler v filipiak another ca [2011 the claimant appealed against an award for general damages following a road traffic accident in which she was injured when her vehicle collided with a vehicle being driven by the defendant who admitted liability the claimant suffered multiple injuries including a fractured femur requiring surgical intervention ptsd permanent scarring to her face and other parts of the body an eye injury dislocation of the right big toe whiplash injury to the neck blunt abdominal injury to the spleen and a concussive head injury a balance of probabilities the accident was caused by the negligent driving of the defendant in pulling out from a minor road junction onto a major road in circumstances where it was not safe to do so the defendant appealed submitting that the trial judge made no findings as to what specifically the defendant failed to do or what she did which constituted a breach of the duty of care accordingly either the judge was failing to apply the correct legal standard but was instead applying a test of absolute liability or she had failed to make a finding of primary fact which could support her conclusion that the defendant was negligent www.dolmans.co.uk 9

[close]

p. 11

motoring news the claimant was awarded £32,000 plus interest for pain and suffering and loss of amenity the claimant submitted that the award was too low and did not reflect the severity of the injuries the reduction for overlap between the various injuries was too great and wrong in principle on appeal it was held that the judge should have had separate figures in mind and then stood back to see if it was sufficient for the totality of injuries as the judge had taken the wrong approach the appeal court could look at the judgement afresh and substitute its own figures it made the following awards £14,000 for the orthopaedic injuries £6,000 for scarring to the body £6,000 for facial scarring and £5,000 for other scaring £12,000 for the post traumatic stress and £2,500 for the eye injury the judge s assessment for the remaining injuries was not criticised the addition of the components of the different parts of the award produced a figure of £47,500 and taking into account overlap £40,000 plus interest was the appropriate award for general damages appeal allowed blown out losing about half its tread the vehicle overturned and collided with the barrier in the central reservation causing injuries to the claimants they brought an action against both the first and second defendants although their primary case was that the accident had been caused by a manufacturing defect in the tyre police photographs of the scene showed that the tyre had deflated when the car was comfortably within the third lane of the motorway and a police inspection of the road revealed there to be no foreign objects that could have damaged the tyre three eyewitnesses also gave evidence that before the sudden loss of control the car was being driven normally it was held that the cause of the accident was the sudden and unexpected loss of the tyre s tread it was not the fault of the second 1 divya 2 madan 3 joshi 4 defendant who had been alert in control and sanganee 5 kandriah v 1 toyo tire driving normally the failure of the tread had rubber co ltd t/a toyo tires of japan not been caused by the car driving over any 2 paranirupasingham [2011 object either on the motorway or in the central reservation it was held that the standard of care required on the part of a the claimants were passengers in a vehicle tyre manufacturer was at the highest level being driven on the motorway by the second and this particular tyre fell below the high defendant a road traffic accident occurred standard that users were entitled to expect when the second defendant lost control of the accident was therefore entirely caused the vehicle due to one of its tyres by the negligence of the first defendant manufactured by the first defendant had www.dolmans.co.uk 10

[close]

p. 12

motoring news articles the `need for credit hire despite the court of appeal having tried to bring an end to the uncertainties and constant litigation in the field of credit hire it remains a much litigated area in practice when dealing with claims involving credit hire one of the most important aspects for defendants to consider is whether the claimant has fulfilled their duty to mitigate their loss available to him/her one of the main areas of challenge is whether b what does the claimant need a hire the claimant can prove that they had a `need vehicle for to hire a vehicle at all this is important because it could lead to the claimant and by c does the claimant have a courtesy vehicle proxy the hire company recovering nothing available under his rta insurance from the defendant or having the hire claim d has the claimant been offered a courtesy drastically reduced the claimant must prove vehicle by the defendant s insurer and if so his need to hire a replacement vehicle but the burden to prove a failure to mitigate is did the offer contain details of the cost to the upon the defendant defendant in providing the vehicle e is the claimant hiring for business reasons there is an inference that where someone or individual needs runs a vehicle and incurs the costs associated with running that vehicle they have a need f could the claimant afford to hire a vehicle for it therefore in most cases it is relatively or purchase a new vehicle without hiring on easy for a claimant to discharge the burden of credit satisfying the court that they had a need to hire a replacement vehicle it is possible for a defendant to displace this inference although this will very much depend on the circumstances of each case the starting point when measuring damages is the principle of restitution in integrum lord blackbrun in livingstone v raywards coal co [1980 5 app cas 25 at 39 defined the measure of damages as that sum of money which will put the party who had been injured or who has suffered in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is now getting his compensation or reparation the need for a replacement vehicle how ever is not selfproving whether there is a need to hire a vehicle will depend on the particular facts of the case the following issues need to be considered a does the claimant have any other vehicle www.dolmans.co.uk 11

[close]

p. 13

motoring news alternative vehicle available it may become clear at an early stage that the hirer has other alternative vehicles available however it is often argued on behalf of claimants that regard must be had to the fact that a claimant has been deprived of the use of their vehicle for which they have paid the upkeep and where there is a possibility of use of the vehicle by the claimant the general principle of restitution in integrum should apply the claimant should not be put in a position where he or she is expected to cope without the vehicle whilst such arguments do not always succeed on balance provided the case law and argument is properly cited claimants are usually successful in recovering hire charges even where an alternative vehicle is available to them use of the hire vehicle a claimant will not establish a need to hire when it can be shown that they could not possibly have used the replacement vehicle as hire charges are effectively damages for loss of use if there was not a need to use the vehicle the hire may be found to be unreasonable examples given in the leading case of giles v thompson [1993 2 wlr 908 include where someone is on holiday following the accident or is in hospital it is therefore important for a defendant to establish whether the claimant has actually driven the replacement vehicle however it must be borne in mind that even if there is evidence to suggest that the claimant did not use the vehicle every day claimants are likely to ask the court to infer that the journeys for which the vehicle was used were perhaps not as minor as a simple averaging exercise would suggest and that the claimant required a replacement vehicle for meaningful purposes defendants must therefore be cautious about drawing too much out of the actual mileage covered by the replacement vehicle during the period of hire but concentrate instead on the evidence available in relation to not only the extent but also the nature of the use made of the hire vehicle courtesy vehicle available form claimant s rta insurer is it reasonable for a claimant to enter into a credit hire agreement where they have been offered or have available an equivalent vehicle free of charge prior to the hire period starting or during the hire period more recent authorities suggest that a claimant does not fail to mitigate their loss by not obtaining a courtesy vehicle from their own insurer to mitigate their loss even if this would have been free of charge the courts have tended to favour the argument that benefits acquired under an insurance policy are not taken into account in assessing loss or mitigation www.dolmans.co.uk 12

[close]

p. 14

motoring news courtesy vehicle available from the defendant s insurer this issue was considered by the court of appeal in the case of copley v lawn [2009 ewca civ 580 the court of appeal found that it would not be unreasonable for a claimant to hire from a credit hire provider even where there had been an offer from the defendant of a free replacement vehicle unless the offer contained all the information necessary for the claimant and her insurers to make an informed choice and a reasonable response if such information is provided and suggests that the cost to the defendant is less than the cost to the claimant and his insurers of hiring from a credit hire company in the absence of any other factor the court is likely to consider the claimant to have acted unreasonably however even where the claimant is found to have acted unreasonably the claimant will still be entitled to recover at least the actual reasonable cost of hire which the defendant could show he would have incurred business or individual need the principle of need was considered in the case of singh v aqua descaling ltd unreported which involved a taxi business where the claimant hired taxis to self employed taxi drivers the profit made by the company per vehicle was significantly less than the cost of hiring a vehicle on credit the claimant did not drive the vehicle himself and was found not to be impecunious the court held that the claimant did not need to hire a vehicle in such circumstances his loss was a loss of profit to his business and that is all he was entitled to claim a distinction was drawn in this case between the business and a self employed taxi driver impecuniosity linked to the issue of need is impecuniosity if a claimant could afford to purchase a new vehicle immediately following the accident this is likely to result in a finding that the claimant had no need for a hire vehicle and it was therefore unreasonable for him to hire one summary in summary whether there is a need for hire depends on the particular facts of each case although the case law weighs heavily in favour of the claimant the issues outlined above need to be addressed in relation to any claim involving a claim for credit hire and if issues are identified at an early stage defendants can potentially avoid the incurrence of unnecessary costs and lengthy litigation which nevertheless results in the credit hire charges being recoverable together with the payment of the claimant s costs www.dolmans.co.uk 13

[close]

p. 15

motoring news ogden update ogden 7 was released on 10 october 2011 key points to note are set our below mortality rates the new tables reflect the changes in the official projected uk future mortality rates since the publication of the last set of tables in 2006 these changes have had a significant effect on some multipliers namely the figures applied to an annual loss in order to calculate an appropriate future loss figure taking into account various contingencies projected future mortality rates are usually produced by the office of national statistics every 2 years the 2006 ogden tables were based upon data obtained in 2004 whereas the new tables accord with data derived from 2008 and are therefore much more up to date disability dr victoria wass joined the ogden working party owp and amended the definition of `disabled from `a progressive illness or an illness which has lasted or is expected to last for over a year to `an illness or a disability which has or is expected to last for over a year or is a progressive illness reference to the disability discrimination act 1995 has been replaced with reference to the equality act 2010 discount rate in the case of wells v wells [1999 1ac 345 it was determined that the discount rate should be based on the yields of index linked government stock the rate is now decided by the lord chancellor in accordance with his powers under the damages act 1996 the current discount rate of 2.5 has remained unchanged since its implementation in 2001 robin de wild qc the author of the introduction to the seventh edition of the ogden tables opines that the present rate of 2.5 is well out of date it appears that this view is shared by the government actuary and the treasury who have advised the current lord chancellor to review the current rate which he has agreed to do so as to allow for any potential revision of the discount rate the new tables now provide for possible annual rates of return ranging from ­2 to 3 in increments of 0.5 this amendment in rates acknowledges the fact that it is unusual/rare for a discount rate exceeding 3 to be necessary and also acknowledges the guernsey case of helmet v simon [2009 2010 glr 465 in which it was held that a discount rate of ­1.5 should be applied to the claimant s future care and loss of earnings claims and a rate of 0.5 to all future non earnings claims www.dolmans.co.uk 14

[close]