Report comment

Anon at 10.33 - can anyone say (I resist a request for "proof") that claimants have been under compensated (grossly, or at all?) for the last decade. I expect, with the benefit of expert financial advice, they have invested their damages in something other than the ILGs. Doesn't that make the basis of the change flawed? Might it now lead to (perhaps gross) over-compensation?

Not that I would want to delve into case law, but I am sure there was a recent published judgment where an infant claimant's lump sum had not been dented - and in fact increased in value - despite the passing of years from settlement due, I expect, to sensible investment.

The observation of John Bower at 11.09 might be the basis for the whole thing. An easy fix, after all. That too is flawed though. I can't imagine how many SCL claims 'wins' the insurers will need to offset, for example, a now c.3 fold increase in a £5M future care claim under the 2.5% calculation that this adjustment brings. It is like comparing apples and fridges.

A change might be overdue, and appropriate, but this seems to be a knee jerk and ill thought.