In June of this year I wrote about the County Court first instance decision of Blair v Jabar where Recorder Jack uplifted the award for PSLA to account for the rate of inflation.
I have been making this submission on every PSLA argument, whether it be at a Stage 3, disposal hearing or fast track trial. It is not always accepted or the Court suggests inflation has been accounted for when making an award.
This is a brief post to set out the highlights of these submissions by way of an update.
No real reliance on Blair v Jabar
I would always refrain from placing too much reliance on Blair v Jabar because it has, for all intents and purposes, no real influence because it is not a binding decision.
When I was acting for a Defendant, my opponent informed the Judge that she had to factor inflation when considering PSLA. The Judge asked my opponent whether there was a binding decision or even at least an appeal decision on the issue, which my opponent confirmed there was not. This left the impression that he was only relying on Blair v Jabar.
I will refer to Blair v Jabar to reconcile how one can work out the inflation rate. However my submission now flows from the JC Guidelines themselves:-
“For the avoidance of doubt, of course, the guideline figures should be increased by the appropriateindex for inflation between editions”
Introduction to the Judicial College Guidelines –
Sixteenth Edition page xiv
Updating inflation as per the RPI
I’ve been making sure I’ve updated the calculation of RPI increase as per the updated information released on ons.org.uk. Interestingly, July 2023 dropped down by a very small percentage, but August returned to a simliar RPI value.
Of course, once the seventeenth edition lands, there may be no need to account for inflation unless it changes significantly. As per the footnote in Blair v Jabar, it is about the date for which the guideline’s figures are based on.
Currently inflation is 22% above what the figure were in September 2021.
How often is this argument successful.
I would say that my success with this argument is now between 40-50%. It is sufficient for me to warrant making the submission, which takes very little time to do.
Most of my arguments have been made at Stage 3 and on a handful of occasions, it has led to me beating the Claimant’s Part B offer which entitles them to Part 36 consequences.
I ought to keep track of who I appear against because I had one Judge say “Mr Hancock.. you’ve previously addressed me on inflation which I rejected.. move on”. Oops.
A few notable objections and observations made
I won’t go through all the various arguments, most of which are made by the Defendant to object to an inflation increase, but here are a few interesting ones (including some observations for the Court):-
- Given the compulsory Part 36 consequences if the Claimant beats its own Part B offer (because there is no ‘unless it is unjust to do so’) it would be inappropriate to artificially increase PSLA
- If it was the intention of the JC Guidelines to increase with inflation, there would be no need for updating the guidelines.
- A Judge refused to consider my skeleton argument which included the RPI inflation information from ons.org.uk which was, in her determination, expert evidence which the Claimant did not have permission to rely on.
- To artificially increase PSLA with an uplift, when the guidelines were just that, would be inappropriate
I’d be interest to know if any Claimants or Defendants have considered appealing the Court’s decision to object or increase the award for PSLA with inflation. I expect it is not proportionate in Stage 3 hearings where the cost of an appeal (subject to standard costs) may be wholly disproportionate.
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.