Blair v Jaber – Claimant should not receive damages based on Sept 21’s value of money

Most personal injury practitioners will be aware of Blair v Jaber. It is not a binding decision. It is not even a county court appeal whereby a Circuit Judge is reviewing a decision of another Judge. It is a Recorder following (what I presume to be) a fast track liability and quantum trial.

The Judge decides that the Court ought to account for inflation. He notes one of two things:-

1. The Northen Irish Green Book (which is the Northern Irish JC Guideline) accounts for future inflation where as the English and Welsh guidelines do not.
2. The change of inflation between the JC Guidelines and the date of the hearing (March 2023) is so dramatic that it ought to be accounted for.

He erroneously presumes the date the JC Guidelines were published was the date the inflation was accurate and determines the different between RPI between those dates was a 12% increase and therefore uplifts by 12%.

A postscript footnote shows that the JC Guidelines were in fact accurate as of September 2021, which meant the correct percentage should have been 19%.

Correct percentage as of today?

The ons.gov.uk website, which shows a revised RPI as of April 2023, now demonstrates a 20.8% increase in inflation since September 2021.

It maybe that tomorrow the RPI information for May will be published (if at all). It means that one ought to consider regular checking the RPI index recently. A copy of my RPI PDF I am relying on is available below.

Does it work in practice?

I have currently had success in Salisbury on 19th June 2023 before DJ Bloom-Davis at a Stage 3 oral hearing.

The Judge was aware of the decision in any event. He was also aware that in the absence of a hard copy of the JC Guidelines, the Recorder did not know that the figures were correct as of September 2021.

What the Judge did not know is that the RPI had updated and the new increase percentage was 20.8%.

I made submissions as to what PSLA should be under the JC Guidelines (£8,000 to £10,000). I then submitted the Judge should apply a 21% uplift to account for the inflation. The Judge did so saying (not verbatim) ‘the Claimant should be awarded damages but not based on the value in September 2021.

He decided damages were £8,000 and then uplifted by £1,664 (20.8%) to account for inflation.

My opponent did not seek permission to appeal but as a provision, the Judge put the stop date in the Order (the usual 21 days).

However I did not have the same success before DJ Scott in Exeter on 20th June 2023. Here my opponent argued that it would be nonsensical to apply an uplift with RPI and publish new JC Guidelines (which I thought was a good argument). The Judge essentially determined that as they were guidelines there was no need to adjust for inflation.

Will it continue?

Other than Judges who chose not to apply an uplift (and justify why) I expect these uplifts will continue to be applied until a 17th Edition is released (thus accounting for inflation).

The internet has indicated that a 17th Edition is already in hand:-

Where will these uplifts cause real problems for compensators?

Anything of significant value, but if occurring across the board then even with low value PSLA it will add up.

£8,000 with a 20.8% uplift seems quite a sufficient uplift. Now imagine an £800,000 order for PSLA with a £166,400 uplift, making it £966,400.

I recall years ago when the discount rate changed significantly for the first time (I believe thanks to Liz Truss when she was Lord Chancellor) and Defendants were being advised to accept Part 36 offers out of time because the cost consequences were cheaper than the risk that future losses were about to go through the roof.

The Solicitor I trained under came up to me when I was working and showed me an email where the Defendant’s Solicitors had just accepted a £1.7 million Part 36 offer out of time. This had already been to a CCMC before a Master at the RCJ and was proceeding to a liability trial.

Not binding #optional

The difficulty, as above, is that Recorder Jack’s decision is not binding. No County Court Judge has to follow it. If a Judge sitting in the High Court were to not uplift then that would kill future uplifts in the County Court save for any successful appeal (unless another High Court Judge disagreed – then the lower courts will be in trouble).

Even if a 17th Edition were to be released, it would still need to account for the fact that any increase in the RPI would need to be accounted for.

I already have some arguments should I be instructed to appear on the Defendant and I’ve also considered some counter arguments to any potential arguments raised by the Defendant. Time shall tell.

Information 

AJH Advocacy Limited, a Limited Company which is regulated by the Bar Standards Boards (entity number 190758), ceases trading on the 12th January 2026.

From the 12th January 2026 and onwards, Alec Hancock will practice as a Barrister at Magdalen Chambers in Exeter. For instructions on matters on or after 12th January 2026, please contact Magdalen Chambers via clerks@magdalenchambers.co.uk or by telephone on 01392 285 200.