header-logo header-logo

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

Where do we stand?

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 he or the defendant be the one to suffer the

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll