Report comment

Andrew,

Would your position be altered if the hard evidence revealed that the most vulnerable receiving parties were regularly enjoying returns that would point towards a discount rate of +5%, where those investments were made by naturally prudent, naturally cautious deputies/trustees?

Or, perhaps, would you recognise that the cohort of claimant that I describe are in a different position to those claimants who will make their own investment decisions? If so, what would be your reaction to the suggestion of a two tier discount rate, with something like +5% applying to professionally managed estates?

Finally, are you aware of whether the Committee has received, or will receive evidence about the actual investment returns yielded by deputy/trust clients of the leading PI/clin neg firms? If not, would you agree with me that this would amount to a significant and surprising omission, and, if omission it be, that there can be no innocent explanation for this evidence not being offered up?