HL Deb 22 February 1994 vol 552 cc509-10

Lord Gisborough asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they are satisfied with the increasing amounts of damages awarded to litigants in civil actions, and in particular those awarded against the Ministry of Defence.

The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)

My Lords, because the Government were aware of anomalies in this area of the law, in 1991 I invited the Law Commission to examine the principles and effectiveness of the remedy of damages. This will help a more rational basis to be applied and understood by all those affected by civil litigation. The Law Commission has already issued two consultation papers.

Lord Gisborough

My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer. In view of the outrageous awards in the United States, awards towards which this country is starting to move, does he agree that the Government should take action to try to keep awards relative to actual loss and degrees of recklessness rather than to the imagination and greed of plaintiffs and their lawyers?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I have suggested to your Lordships that it is right that awards should be in accordance with principles. The purpose of the remit to the Law Commission is that it should help us to restate those principles in a way that will be readily comprehensible and, I hope, will also avoid any kind of detriment of the type to which my noble friend referred that might possibly travel eastwards from the United States.

Lord Ackner

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the conventional award, as it is called — the award purely for pain and suffering and loss of amenities— is in fact arguably too low, a point that is made in the Judicial Studies Board's guidelines on the assessment of general damages? The guidelines draw attention to what perhaps is not known— that the top award at the moment for injuries of the utmost gravity is between £ ll0,000 and £ 115,000. The award is starkly raised when there is a combination of injuries of the greatest gravity; blindness or deafness, brain injury and paralysis. Does my noble and learned friend agree that the factors contributing to the big figures to which attention is drawn are loss of income, loss Of pension, medical treatment and often the large expenses involved in making the establishment in which the injured person lives capable of being used properly by him?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, undoubtedly, especially in large awards, by far the major part of the award reflects pecuniary loss of the types to which my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner refers. The precise principles on which the conventional award should be based constitutes a rather difficult question. I hope that the Law Commission's examination of the whole area will encompass that aspect. I agree with my noble and learned friend that there is an argument that the present level is on the small side when one compares awards with some in other fields.

Back to