As is widely known, the processes for setting an appropriate discount rate (or rates) for valuing future pecuniary loss are moving forward under separate legislation in both England & Wales and in Scotland.
The matter of updating the Ogden Tables to reflect any new rate (or rates) and to deal with changes in population life expectancy has consequently taken something of a back seat in recent years and, as far as we can tell, remains on the back burner very probably until new discount rates are determined under both pieces of legislation.
The orthodox answer to this question is no, on the basis that it is the peculiarities of the facts which give rise to the outcome, rather than any new legal approach. In two decisions this week in the tort of negligence, the clinical claim Darnley in the Supreme Court and the vicarious liability claim Bellman in the Court of Appeal, the higher Courts worked from the initial findings of fact and applied the existing law to them to drive different outcomes from those reached in the courts below.
As anticipated in yesterday’s blog about the Bill’s second reading, various amendments from the government and oppositon have now been published. These will be debated next week, in Committee stages scheduled for 11 and 13 September. Both sets of amendments address the whiplash reforms in part 1 of the Bill and don’t touch* on the discount rate measures in part 2, which seems to be a clear sign that it is far less politically-charged than whiplash. Continue reading