Andrew Wild is head of legal at First4InjuryClaims
The Court of Appeal ruling on mixed injury claims should be the catalyst to create a system that works as intended (unless that intention was simply to reduce claims and nothing else)
Opinion remains mixed—aptly enough—over the recent ruling from the Court of Appeal on how mixed injury claims should be valued in the Official Injury Claim portal.
Judges upheld the lower court’s decision that pain, suffering and loss of amenity should be assessed for both whiplash injuries, for which a tariff exists, and other injuries for which one does not, with a small reduction to account for the overlap.
The two test cases were brought by Robert James Solicitors, which called it a “major victory”—but not everyone agrees, not least the dissenting opinion of Master of the Rolls Geoffrey Vos. The tariffs laid down by Parliament “cannot be topped up by… claiming also in respect of other injuries”, he said.
The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers welcomed confirmation that damages for non-tariff injuries must be paid but rejected any deduction that “risks undercompensating victims of negligence when they are already subject to reduced damages because of the whiplash tariff, which we have always argued is grossly unfair”.
Insurers also expressed disappointment at the ruling as lacking clarity and undermining the whiplash reforms. “It opens the door to double counting of injuries that could significantly erode the benefits of the reforms for premium paying motorists,” the Association of British Insurers said.
That argument would carry significantly more weight if motorists had actually seen the benefits. Contrary to the promise that savings would be passed on, insurance premiums have gone up.
Positive step
In my opinion, it was never the intention of Parliament to remove the assessment of non-tariff injuries. The act, regulations, and