Whiplash – Balancing act of Tariff and non Tariff injuries

Background

The Supreme Court recently handed down judgement in relation to the case of Hassam v Rabot [2024] UKSC11. This case concerned two Defendants appealing against claims for personal injuries regarding the amount of damages awarded to the Claimants for pain, suffering and loss of amenity (PSLA). In this case the Claimants had suffered both whiplash and non-whiplash injuries.

Under the Civil Liability Act 2018 (‘the Act’) the damages payable for whiplash injuries are limited by reference to the duration of the injury as set out in the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 reg 2. This can be contrasted with PSLA for non-whiplash injuries which are not limited by such a tariff.

Ruling

The Supreme court dismissed both the appeals and the Claimant’s cross appeals. They held that the correct approach was one where general damages for PSLA caused by whiplash and non-whiplash injuries should be assessed by considering both injuries separately. Their totals should be added together and, if appropriate, a reduction in damages should be applied, as per Sadler v Filipiak [2011], in order to prevent double recovery.

This judgement has demonstrated the balancing act that needs to be undertaken in limiting the amount of damages recoverable for whiplash injuries as per the Act and also ensuring fairness is maintained with regards to over-compensating. Please contact our insurance litigation team here if you would like further information.