Judicial College Guidelines – challenge to inflation uplift
The chosen inflation measure used to uplift the whiplash tariffs was CPI with increases of 14-15%, whereas the last JCG increases for other injury (PSLA) awards was at 22% based on RPI.
The JCG editors noted at the time that a switch to CPI would need outside intervention by the courts.*
We are now seeing the first steps in that process and one of our current Minster Law customer claims has been selected by the MIB as a test case to “challenge to the application of RPI as the correct measure of indexation for general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity”.
We understand that leave will be sought from the court to introduce evidence on the issue of indexation.
It may be that we see a move to CPI for non-whiplash tariff injuries by the time the next JCG update is given (that would likely be April 2026 but could be brought forward).
No doubt the courts will independently and carefully balance all the factors and evidence here and have in mind ensuring claimants receive full and proper compensation for their injuries.
*
As in previous editions we have rounded the figures to provide realistic brackets. The figures have been cross-checked against each other to ensure consistency and, so far as possible, a degree of logic in the difficult task of compensating physical injuries by the payment of money. Since the publication of the last edition of the Guidelines, inflation has risen dramatically. In uplifting the figures in this edition we have, as in previous editions, applied the Retail Prices Index. In doing so we reflect the law as it currently stands. For this edition, we have uplifted by reference to the RPI figure of 376.6 for August 2023 (which was published by ONS on 20 September 2023) as that was the most recent figure available at the date on which the text of this edition was finalised. We have received considered submissions that an index other than RPI should be used and that an alternative index (Consumer Prices Index) would more accurately and more fairly provide the true measure of inflation in the UK. We are aware of these arguments and recognise the existence of alternative indices that may be appropriate. However, it is not for the editorial team, which I lead, to prescribe a different inflationary index from that which is judicially approved and adopted by the courts dealing with personal injury claims. Any change must be for the courts having heard evidence, including expert evidence, and submissions on behalf of claimants and defendants. Putting it shortly, if the current judicially approved index is to be challenged, then that challenge must be made in the courts. We look forward to reviewing the position in two years’ time. For the avoidance of doubt, of course, these guideline figures should be increased by the appropriate index for inflation between August 2023 and the date of any assessment of damages.
