How does the 17th edition vary from the 16th edition? 

For the large part, this has been an updating exercise taking into account inflation since the 16th edition.  However, this has been a significant jump of itself, with inflation amounting to something like 22% between editions. 

Further, the Guidelines reiterate, or clarify, two important points. 

Inflation 

In the Introduction to this edition of the Guidelines, Lambert J reminds practitioners that the Guidelines are to be adjusted for inflation between editions.  

The correct index to use is the retail price index (RPI) - in line with previous decisions of the court. Suggestions that the consumer price index (CPI) should be used, is a matter for the courts, and not for the editors of the Guidelines.  This may be, of course, something which is challenged in court. 

The updated ‘Notes on Inflation’ within the Guidelines, set out clearly that such inflationary uplift should occur routinely; it should not be controversial, which it appears to have been in some courts.  

It is also the case that figures should be adjusted based on the date the figures within the Guidelines were calculated (August 2023), and not the date of publication in around April 2024. In fact, applying that even at the time of writing (June 2024) results in about a 2.2% uplift. 

The Guidelines are the ‘Chicken’ and not the ‘Egg’ 

Practitioners are also reminded that the Guidelines are not a reflection on what the Judicial College, or the team of editors of the Guidelines, believe that the figures should be. Rather, they are a reflection of figures which have been awarded in court and are adjusted (save for inflation) only when court decisions suggest that they ought to be. 

However, it is acknowledged that, of course, it is usual practice to start by looking at the Guidelines when assessing quantum for any given case. There is, therefore, something of a circular nature to the exercise. 

Other Points of Interest 

The clarification of the two points above is useful, especially in practice in relation to adjusting the Guideline figures for inflation. 

The Guidelines also contain some alterations as to brackets and valuation for psychological injuries arising from sexual and/or physical abuse. 

The Mesothelioma bracket continues to be considered without the Simmons v Castle uplift on the basis that these would normally be dealt with under pre-LASPO conditional fee agreements. 

Practitioners are reminded that the provision, or lack of provision, of technology to improve function and/or reduce pain may result in an appropriate increase or reduction in damages. 

The individual ‘Notes’ on the 10% uplift; whiplash tariff awards; multiple injuries; and inflation remain useful reminders as to those issues.