0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Warriner v Warriner, Court of Appeal, 24 January 2002

29 January 2002
The issues

Discount rate – whether the Court of Appeal should allow a lower rate than 2.5%.

The facts

The Claimant at CMC was given permission to rely upon forensic accountancy evidence in relation to the appropriate discount rate to be used when assessing the future loss multiplier in a personal injury action. The report from the Claimant’s Forensic Accountant argued that a multiplier based on a 2.5% discount rate was unfair to all Claimants on the life-time loss cases. The report attacked the methodology used by the Lord Chancellor in setting the rate at 2.5% arguing that a more appropriate rate was lower than that rate and should be used on the basis that the Claimant had an unusually long life expectancy (46 years). The Defendant appealed from the Case Management Decision.

The decision

1. The Case Management Decision should only be over-turned by an appellate Court if the Judge was plainly wrong.

2. The whole purpose of the Lord Chancellor’s decision had been to eliminate the need to call expert evidence in respect of the appropriate discount rate.

3. There was nothing unusual about this case, either in terms of the expectation of life or the value of the claim. (In Warren the life expectancy was 1 year longer and the value of the claim at £3,000,000 was rather higher than this claim).

The Lord Chancellor had explained fully why 2.5% was the appropriate rate. No further explanation was required. This fell clearly within the range of cases foreseen by the Lord Chancellor.

Appeal allowed.



A case of the line being held?

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up