Prior to the 17th edition of the JC Guidelines, many practitioners and advocates were arguing for or against the Court increasing the PSLA brackets to account for inflation.
Given the significant increase in inflation (which, if using RPI which is what the Judicial College relied on, was a significant increase) it impacted Defendants who found that Claimant Part 36 offers were now more likely to be beaten.
Understandably, Defendants argued that there was no need for the Courts to account for interest. The 17th edition had a significant impact, because the Judicial College expressly agreed with the Claimant’s position.
Blair v Jaber
Recorder Jack, in the matter of Blair v Jaber whilst sitting in the County Court at Coventry, agreed with the Claimant that inflation needed to be accounted for.
17. I turn then to general damages. I first make a general point about the Judicial College Guidelines. The current edition was published on 11th April 2022, nearly a year ago. The figures in this latest edition were probably finalised earlier. Since then, we have had inflation such as has not been seen since the 1970s. The Office of National Statistics figure for January 2023 released on 15th February 2023 showed the Retail Price Index at 13.4% per annum. The source of that is http://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices, accessed on 8th March 2023
18. The Judicial College Guidelines, unlike the Northern Irish Green Book, do not take future inflation into account. I need to consider whether the figures in the guidelines should be increased to take the unexpected and massive increase in inflation into account. Ms Dervin submitted that I should not. That is, she submitted, a matter for the Judicial College to consider. I disagree. The Judicial College Guidelines are just that – guidelines. If there is a change in circumstances between April 2022 and today, that is a matter to take into account when assessing damages. The very substantial drop in the value of money which has taken place since April 2022 is just such a circumstance. Accordingly, the Judicial College figures needs to be increased by, in my judgment, about 12%.
I experienced significant success in increasing the amount of PSLA awarded over time, which usually led to Part 36 consequences.
17th Edition
The 17th edition was released and, helpfully, I received it a few weeks before it was due to be published. The following was contained within the introduction:-
As in previous editions we have rounded the figures to provide realistic brackets. The figures have been cross-checked against each other to ensure consistency and, so far as possible, a degree of logic in the difficult task of compensating physical injuries by the payment of money. Since the publication of the last edition of the Guidelines, inflation has risen dramatically. In uplifting the figures in this edition we have, as in previous editions, applied the Retail Prices Index. In doing so we reflect the law as it currently stands. For this edition, we have uplifted by reference to the RPI figure of 376.6 for August 2023 (which was published by ONS on 20 September 2023) as that was the most recent figure available at the date on which the text of this edition was finalised. We have received considered submissions that an index other than RPI should be used and that an alternative index (Consumer Prices Index) would more accurately and more fairly provide the true measure of inflation in the UK. We are aware of these arguments and recognise the existence of alternative indices that may be appropriate. However, it is not for the editorial team, which I lead, to prescribe a different inflationary index from that which is judicially approved and adopted by the courts dealing with personal injury claims. Any change must be for the courts having heard evidence, including expert evidence, and submissions on behalf of claimants and defendants. Putting it shortly, if the current judicially approved index is to be challenged, then that challenge must be made in the courts. We look forward to reviewing the position in two years’ time. For the avoidance of doubt, of course, these guideline figures should be increased by the appropriate index for inflation between August 2023 and the date of any assessment of damages.
One of the tasks of the editorial team for each new edition of the Guidelines is to apply an inflationary increase to the figures contained in the previous edition. For that purpose, it has always been the practice to use the Retail Prices Index (RPI) and, for the reasons explained in the Introduction to this seventeenth edition, it is the index which will continue to be used unless and until the Courts decide otherwise.
There is, unfortunately but unavoidably, quite a long gap between the editorial team finalising its work and the Guidelines appearing in print. For example, as explained in the Introduction to the sixteenth edition, the editorial team based the figures in that edition on RPI as it stood in September 2021, but the guidelines were not actually published until April 2022. Thus, even at the date of publication, the figures for every edition of the Guidelines are already somewhat out of date. In times of higher inflation (and particularly when dealing with larger awards), the difference can be significant. To our surprise, the issue of whether to apply inflationary increases between editions still seems to attract some controversy when, in accordance with conventional practice and procedure, it should not. We have noted that in some cases judges have applied inflation only from the date of publication of the Guidelines but in circumstances where it appears the delay between calculation of the figures and publication was not drawn to their attention. For the reason explained above, this is incorrect. For the avoidance of doubt, an inflationary increase to the Guideline figures should be applied to ensure that figures remain up to date.
To give a practical illustration of the approach to be taken, in the sixteenth edition, the suggested figure for total loss of taste and smell in Chapter 5(C) is ‘in the region of £39,170’. This was based on the RPI figure in September 2021 of 308.6. To establish the value of that sum in say June 2023, one first needs to establish RPI at that date (376.4). The updated value of £39,170 can then be calculated as: £39,170 x (376.4/308.6) = £47,776 reflecting an increase in RPI inflation from September 2021 to June 2023 of around 22%.
For this present edition, we have updated figures based on RPI in August 2023 (376.6), but publication of this edition is not expected until April 2024. Details of the latest available RPI figure can be found within the ‘RPI All Items Index’ section of the Office for National Statistics website.
Therefore, the jump in the PSLA brackets, compared with the 16th edition, was significant compared with previous increases (due to the increase in inflation).
Current inflation increase
So, what does this currently mean for PSLA? One should follow the advice of the Judicial College (and presume that if the Judicial College was correct in using the RPI instead of CPI) we should assume that we account for inflation using RPI.
The RPI was 376.4 at the time of the preparation of the 17th edition. The most recent RPI recording was November 2024 which shows RPI at 390.9:-
Therefore, a further uplift of 3.7% should be applied as per the calculation below:-
390.9 RPI – 376.6 RPI = 14.3
14.3 ÷ 376.6 RPI x 100 = 3.69613224
Percentage increase from 376.6 RPI to 390.9 RPI = 3.7%
So what does it do to the JC Guidelines? Here is an example:-
| Chapter 14 – Minor Injuries | 17th edition | Uplift – 390.9 Nov 24 (3.7%) |
| (a) Injuries where there is a complete recovery withinseven days. | A few hundred pounds to £840 | A few hundred pounds to £871.08 |
| (b) Injuries where there is a complete recovery within28 days. | £840 to £1,680 | £871.08 to £1,742.16 |
| (c) Injuries where there is a complete recovery within threemonths. | £1,680 to £2,990 | £1,742.16 to £2,993.70 |
The increase is so minor that in practice, it currently will not make much of a difference. However, it is always worth keeping an eye on the market and RPI in case there is a significant jump. After all, it can go in the opposite direction and reduce in value (although I expect it would never drop below the current JC Guidelines.
Overall, it may not be worth making much of a big deal about, especially when the Court is likely to give a rounded figure for PSLA.
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.