Since the decision of Blair v Jaber started doing the rounds last year, all personal injury practitioners have been considering what the Judicial College board would decide regarding inflation. It was they who inserted the guidance “for the avoidance of doubt, of course, the guideline figures should be increased by the appropriate index for inflation between editions” into the introduction.
A District Judge made a recent comment stating that the particular paragraph was almost unrelated to the guidance of inflation, which is why it’s understandable why many Judges and practitioners may have overlooked it. Some Judges have agreed with the advice given, while others have declined to follow it.
People have been eagerly anticipating the release of the 17th edition to know about the JC board’s take on inflation. Although the release was scheduled for April 2024, some of us were notified that our copies were coming. I was fortunate to have received my copy.
For the avoidance of doubt…… still
The introduction states the following:-
- They have rounded the figures to provide realistic brackets, as per previous edition
- The figures have been cross-checked with each other to ensure consistency and a degree of logic in compensating physical injuries with money
- They recognise the dramatic rise in inflation
- They used the RPI index figure for August 2023 (16th edition was September 2021)
- Any consideration as to whether CPI or another measurement should be used is for the Courts to consider, not the editorial team, but they are using RPI.
- They were surprised that Courts were not increasing with inflation when they should have.
- An increase in inflation should be considered from August 2023 and the date of assessment.
It is likely that many experts were not taken aback by this news, and their typical justifications were confirmed.
What was I arguing in Court prior to the release of the 17th edition?
I learned early on to prioritize the introduction of the 16th edition of JC Guidelines over Blair v Jaber, which was a non-binding county court decision and therefore easily arguable. The quote I rely on is:-
“For the avoidance of doubt, of course, the guideline figures should be increased by the appropriate index for inflation between editions”
Introduction to the JC Guidelines –
Sixteenth Edition page xiv
Suppose a claim enters Stage 2 negotiations when the 15th edition is active, but by the time it reaches Stage 3 hearings, the 16th edition has replaced it. In that case, the Court will value damages based on the 16th edition. It would never apply the 15th edition retrospectively. This can be argued to be because the value of money (amongst other things) has changed the value of PSLA.
For the same reason, if the JC Guidelines recommend that the Court should increase the figures by the appropriate index for inflation between editions, then the Court ought to.
Blair was just useful in demonstrating how a Court could measure the rate of inflation:-
Defendant Counsel: “Blair isn’t a binding decision, it is just one county court Judge’s decision and probably the only one the Claimant can find”
Judge: “….but the Claimant is relying on the JC Guidelines that says I ought to increase the damages in line with inflation, rather than the decision of Recorder Jack?”
What will happen now?
We need to monitor the inflation rate closely. As of August 2023, the inflation rate has risen by 0.37%. Although this increase may not have a significant impact, we will remain vigilant and submit appropriate claims if necessary.
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.