It was quite exciting when I first started as a litigated fee earner (almost a decade ago) researching PSLA cases to try and argue quantum. I felt like a real ‘lawyer’ trying to build a case to argue.
I would get the firm’s Kemp & Kemp or log into lawful and fine those cases. Obviously as I became more experience, the more I became aware that sometimes the cases did not really assist and could sometimes give a false sense.
Arguing the value of PSLA at trial or a disposal hearing is where I really began to learn the art (because it really is an art) of valuing PSLA.
So why is it dangerous to rely on PSLA quantum cases?
The submitted cases are always usually favourable to the party relying on them
Cases come to be within Lawtel and the like because law firms have uploaded them. It is usually the case that the party that benefits more from the decision will rely on it.
If it is the case that there are similar ranging injuries with a similar range of PSLA value, does that actually reflect the actual trend of awards by the Judiciary? Very difficult indeed.
Finding an individual injury can be near on impossible when that injury is usually suffered with other injuries.
Gastroenteritis food poisoning tends to only be presented with those symptoms (occasionally there can be some additional symptoms, such as arthritis exacerbation which can be caused by Salmonella infection). However try to find a neck injury on its own without the other whiplash associated injury is almost impossible.
It has been more challenging of late when considering the value of a non-tariff injury in isolation from a tariff injury.
Judges rarely consider non-binding case law
I’ve only seen one Defendant make a submission on PSLA referring the Judge to a case. The Judge simply remarked in their submission that this was another county court judge assessing damages about a different person on a different day. The amount of information provided is limited and there will always be factors that are not reconcilable.
Cases can be helpful in negotiating a settlement but in an assessment by the Court, not so much.
The JC Guidelines are the only real source
The JC Guidelines are very much only guidelines but it is the only true source for making submissions. They will assist the Court in narrowing value to a particular bracket. Even then some categories can be very unhelpful.
For example, reasonably short lived soft tissue injuries do not usually sit well in Chapter 7’s wrist section because they are suitable for minor undisplaced, minimally displaced wrist injuries or soft tissue injuries which require the application of plaster with full recovery within 12 months.
However the minor injuries catagroy can be of little use when the longest duration is three months (so a six month wrist injury with no fracture or need for plaster will fit in neither category).
Inflation is so bad that the accuracy of the value is not in keeping with the current JC Guidelines
Those who have read my previous post about inflation and the case of Blair v Jabar will know that inflation has gone up since the figures for 16th Edition of the JC Guidelines were used (September 2021). Currently that rate is 21.97% up to June 2023.
However RPI is used to increase the rate between the date the award was given in the case to today’s figures.
Today I had to consider a previous advice on quantum to reflect the value based on the 16th Edition (with the previous advice being based on the 15th). I chose not to review the previous counsel’s advice so I would have fresh eyes. It just happened that I located a case that the previous counsel had. He prepared his advice in October 2021 and this case RPI at the time was approximately £1,000. Today the inflation meant that case was £1,550.
This was not in keeping with the JC Guidelines. Of course, this strengthens the position of an uplift like Recorder Jack did. I find however more often than not the Court does not entertain an uplift.
PSLA quantum cases have their place and role but practitioners ought to be aware.
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.