I have discussed recently, with a few other advocates, about the success of obtaining inflation increases on PSLA awards. I now argue this on every occasion that I have to make a submission for PSLA. The more I do it, the more I’m convinced that to not make the submission would be negligent because there is an express recommendation in the JC Guidelines.
I would say that my proportion of cases that get success from the argument has now increased into the 50-60% threshold. Interestingly I have also had success in arguing it in mixed tariff and non-tariff cases (albeit, the increase can only be applied to the non-tariff award).
Some time has passed since I first wrote about it. Here are a few recent examples of where I have succeeded or failed in the submission.
Judge refuses to consider uplift because it was not ‘pleaded’
The difficulty with stage 3 hearings is that the unconventional approach is that the Claimant goes first and the Defendant has the last word, compared with a fast track or multi track trial (and future, intermediate track trials).
The Claimant advocate, in arguing inflation increase, must do so first and ensure all points are covered without any gaps for the Defendant to take advantage of.
My most recent stage 3 was this week and was by telephone. I had the opportunity to discuss matters with my opponent beforehand. She advised me she was going to argue that the claimant could not ask for an increase when the stage two negotiations took place almost two to three years before and we had neither requested inflation in the court proceedings pack nor on the claim form when it was finally issued in 2023.
I submitted to the Judge that the JC Guidelines requested that the court consider inflation when making an award. I gave the example that the accident and the PSLA negotiations took place when the 15th edition of the JC Guidelines were in effect. I submitted that the court would not apply the 15th edition to the assessments of damages at the hearing because the 16th edition applied. For the same reasons the judge had to take inflation into consideration because the increase in inflation between the 15th and the 16th edition was reported to only be 6.5%, whereas now it is increased by 22%.
The Judge accepted my opponent’s admission that the nature of stage 3 should mean that the Claimant must raise the argument sooner not a few days before the hearing by way of my skeleton argument. Whilst I disagreed with this position, especially when the judicial guidelines gave the recommendation and notice, not the party, the judge also found our valuation of PSL a in the court proceedings pack to be more accurate. It is possible the judge had a balancing act in refusing to account for inflation by seeming more favourable in the 16th edition valuation of the damages.
Hat trick success when acting for Claimant and Defendant on the same day.
I had three sets of instructions for stage 3 hearings on the same day at the same Court. On this occasion too of them were heard by the same Judge with the final one being heard by a separate Judge in a different courtroom.
The first stage 3 hearing was appearing on behalf of the Claimant. My opponent did not seem to object to the concept that inflation needs to be accounted for and focused on arguing down the initial valuation of PSLA and gave a rough and ready uplift for inflation. I was aware at this point that my opponent would be appearing for the Claimant in my third stage 3 hearing where I would be acting for the Defendant. The Judge increased PSLA by the percentage that my skeleton argument set out, relying on the RPI information from ons.org.uk.
In the second stage 3 hearing, I had a different opponent but the same Judge. Unsurprisingly the Judge allowed inflation increase and this led to the claimant beating the Part B offer. The Judge did however accept my opponent’s submissions that the percentage interest should be low as the Defendant has already been punished by the increase in inflation leading to Part 36 consequences.
I then appeared before the different Judge against my opponent from the first stage 3 hearing but as the Defendant. Naturally the awkwardness would be that I had argued that inflation had to be considered before the first Judge where my opponent agreed the principle, but now intended to argue against it.
This Judge agreed that the nature of stage 3 and the need to consider inflation just meant that she needed to ensure she valued PSLA in a more favourable light but did not need to increase as dramatically as 22%. Whilst the Judge had already valued PLSA far higher than the Defendant’s suggestion, the refusal to increase by 22% prevented the Claimant beating its Part B offer.
Keep track of who you make the inflation argument before
I came before a Deputy District Judge in Plymouth and I have been before him on many occasions for various reasons but on this occasions I too had been instructed by a Claimant for one stage 3 hearing and then for the Defendant on a second stage 3.
My opponent for the Claimant in the second stage 3 hearing did not seek to argue inflation (which was fortunate) because during the first stage 3 hearing I began to refer to inflation and my skeleton argument where the Judge said “Mr Hancock, you’ve made this argument before me on another occasion and I refused it… so move on please”.
Oops…. I could not recall this particular occasion. That’s how often I’ve argued PSLA inflation increase. I’ve tried to keep track of which Judges but of course, I won’t know which Judge I will be before until either CourtServe posts its listings or when I arrive at Court (as last minute substitutions happen).
What is the current rate?
The current RPI is 378.4 as of September 2023. In September 2021 it was 308.6 which means there has been a 22.62% increase with inflation.
An interesting point that initially caught me off guard was a District Judge sitting in Weston Super Mare who asked me why I was relying on RPI rather than CPI (which would have been less favourable)? I managed to keep the suggestion at bay by arguing that both Kemp & Kemp and the guidelines referred to the RPI as the rate of inflation.
Out of interest, the CPI in September 2023 was 132 and in September 2021 it was 112.4. That is a 17.43% increase. Even though CPI rises more slowly, there is still quite the increase.
A £2,000 PSLA award under the 16th edition of the JC Guidelines would increase to £2,452.40 by reference to RPI or £2,3848.60. Either way, inflation has increase significantly to make the difference that the Courts ought to be accounting for this until the 17th Edition drops (which will take the trend of awards into consideration).
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.