Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 15th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise for not having been able to speak at Second Reading. I will briefly intervene on these amendments, because I find the content of all of them quite persuasive. The mover of Amendment 56 touched on an important point: who owns the risk if you accept a lump sum payment instead of periodic payments? If, hopefully, the routine is that in most circumstances, one finds out what a periodic payment would look like, one needs to consider this: if you prefer to have a lump sum and take the investment risk, the person who makes that choice owns it, which in turn reflects upon how you would make presumptions about their investment strategies. I intended to touch on this when we come to my amendment in a later group, but as this is the other side of the argument, I wished to raise that point now and to say that I am in the “shove” rather than “nudge” brigade.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, referred at Second Reading to Clause 8(3) and the assumptions to be followed in determining the rate as set out in, notably, paragraph 3(3)(a) of proposed new Schedule A1, in which the Lord Chancellor must assume that the relevant damages are payable in a lump sum rather than under an order for periodical payments.

Paragraph 3(3)(d) of proposed new Schedule A1 prescribes an assumption that the relevant damages are invested using an approach that involves,

“more risk than a very low level of risk, but … less risk than would ordinarily be accepted by a prudent and properly advised individual investor who has different financial aims”.

The noble and learned Lord observed that the Lord Chancellor would have to have,

“a certain element of the prophet about him”,

and that:

“Getting an expert panel to agree … will be very difficult” .—[Official Report, 24/4/18; cols. 1504-05.]


Perhaps the Minister could confirm this, or make it clear that this a not-for-prophet provision.

The decisions that will be made will impinge heavily on the innocent victims of negligence or breaches of statutory duty over a wide range of circumstances, hence the noble Lord’s amendment that would provide that an order may distinguish between different classes of case by reference to the description or anticipated scale of future pecuniary loss involved. But the amendment to Section 1 of the Damages Act 1996—in Clause 8, lines 29-34—which states that the provision of the preceding subsection requiring the court to,

“take into account such rate of return (if any) as may from time to time be prescribed by an order made by the Lord Chancellor”,

is qualified such that it,

“does not however prevent the court taking a different rate of return into account if any party to the proceedings shows that it is more appropriate in the case in question”.

This seems to create the possibility of the courts departing significantly in individual cases from the Lord Chancellor’s prescribed tariff. This would be welcome, but can the Minister confirm that that is the intention behind the Bill in that context?

I certainly endorse the noble and learned Lord’s Amendment 57A and I hope the Government will adopt it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Kinnoull]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 80 and 81 in my name. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on his heart-rending speech, but it seemed only to go back to saying, “My goodness, PPO is a good idea”. So many of the risks which the noble Lord identified would be sorted out by that, but that is in the past.

New Schedule A1 to the Damages Act is inserted by Clause 8(2). At Second Reading, I said that I was worried that paragraph 3(3) did not give sufficient clarity to what was being asked for in the investment. I was concerned that, without that clarity, there could be a plethora of new Wells v Wells cases, with people trying to grapple with what was actually meant. Amendment 80 probes the word “investments” in the phrase,

“the assumption that the recipient of the relevant damages invests the relevant damages in a diversified portfolio of investments”.

We should at least be clear that those investments were debt securities, not equities.

Secondly, I thought it would be helpful to try to define a “very low level of risk”. That does not actually mean anything to me, with my background, and I suspect it does not mean anything in law. I have tried to define it as the level of risk you have when you buy UK Government debt security. These are probing amendments and I regard this as a discussion, but clarity in this area of the Bill would be greatly to the advantage of everyone concerned.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

My Lords, we are dealing with sensitive issues here. Nobody wants claimants to get a raw deal, but we need to examine presumptions that we appear to be writing in, especially in the light— as has just been mentioned again—of the possibility of periodic payments. In his reply to the first group of amendments, the Minister seemed to say that the possibility of periodic payments was a lot more open than it appears to be, due to the statistics.

Amendment 80B is another probing amendment. I tabled it because the language of paragraph 3(3)(d)(ii) of new Schedule A1—it is much easier to say “the last three lines at the bottom of page 9”—does not seem quite right. The wording concerns how it is to be assumed the relevant damages are invested and says to assume,

“less risk than would ordinarily be accepted by a prudent and properly advised individual investor who has different financial aims”.

My amendment deletes the whole sub-paragraph, but it is a vehicle for probing and there are less extreme ways to fix it.

I understand the intention of the words: the claimant should be reckoned to invest in a cautious and advised way, perhaps more cautiously than an individual who does not have the same vulnerability. Paragraph 41 of the Explanatory Notes explains it as,

“less risk than would ordinarily be taken by a prudent and properly advised individual investor (who is not a claimant) with similar investment objectives”.

Those investment objectives clearly need to be the purposes set out in paragraph 3(2) of new Schedule A1, at lines 25 to 31 of page 9, which includes, for example, that the damages,

“would be exhausted at the end of the period for which they are awarded”.

However, the actual wording in the three lines at the end of page 9 does not seem to say the same thing. The first two lines—

“less risk than would … be accepted by a … properly advised individual investor”—

are broadly okay, but it then says,

“who has different financial aims”,

which is very different from the “similar investment objectives” of the Explanatory Notes. I am therefore slightly puzzled. Was the intention to state that they are different because they are not a claimant, is it a mistake, or have I missed some other point?

Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 12th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I should like to say a word in support of Amendment 50, which is in my name and builds on an amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, to which I put my name but to which I was unable to speak because at the very moment he rose to speak I was taken out of the Chamber for a business meeting, so I never got to say what I should like to say now.

I have proposed for the noble and learned Lord’s consideration an expanded version of his amendment, and I should like to explain the background to it a little more so that the point is firmly before the House. On page 7, line 32, subsection (2) of proposed new Section A1 provides that proposed new subsection (1), which talks about the duty of the court to take into account the rate of return prescribed by order by the Lord Chancellor,

“does not however prevent the court taking a different rate of return into account if any party to the proceedings shows that it is more appropriate in the case in question”.

At first sight, that is quite a reasonable provision which the courts might feel able to use from time to time, but, as case law has developed, the door has effectively been shut on any use of the provision in these terms in cases where it is most likely to be wanted, which is those of injury of maximum severity.

In Warriner v Warriner 2002, the Court of Appeal, drawing on points made in Wells v Wells, stressed that on policy grounds there was a need for negotiations to be conducted with reasonable certainty as to the result and to eliminate unnecessary costs and the leading of extensive evidence. Building on the principle stated in Wells, which I of course support, it refused to interfere with the rate of return prescribed. That point was repeated in subsequent cases and more recently in the Court of Session in Edinburgh, where the same principles apply. The Lord President, Lord Carloway, made it clear in the case of Tortolano v Ogilvie Construction Ltd in 2013—Court of Session Inner House Cases, page 10—that there must be something special or exceptional about the case and that the fact that the injuries were catastrophic, which puts the level very high indeed, was not a special or exceptional case factor that would justify departing from the specified rate.

My point is that the Bill repeats almost exactly the wording of the Damages Act 1996, on which the case law has been built. There is one tiny difference. The formula in the 1996 Act was “does not, however, prevent”. In the Bill, we find the slightly different words “shall not, however, prevent”. But the crucial wording, in particular the word “appropriate”, is still there. If the wording of the Bill remains as it is, my concern is that it is effectively a dead letter because the courts, following established case law in the Courts of Appeal both north and south of the border, will feel that there is no case for interfering at all, even in the most extreme cases, where, as I have suggested, the need for even more precision and care in the rate of return is most compelling.

There is reason to be a little more generous at this stage. As the noble and learned Lord is well aware, the basis on which the rate of return is to be struck is to be taken at a slightly different level from that on which Wells v Wells was based. In Wells, the House of Lords used a rate of return that was inflation-proof—adopting a relevant government bond which had that rate of return—to avoid any risk of losing touch with inflation. Now, instead of a very, very low level of risk, there is to be an assumption that more risk will be acceptable than a very low level of risk, although it is less risk than would ordinarily be accepted by a prudent and properly advised individual investor. So there is a change towards a slightly greater element of risk, although not that high. The point is that any change in the level of risk being contemplated raises the possibility that in these extreme cases, the level may fail to achieve what is needed to provide the injured party with what is necessary to compensate them fully for the loss and injury sustained.

Simply to repeat the same formula is unsatisfactory. I was grateful to the noble and learned Lord for agreeing to a meeting the other day at which I was able to explain the point. I think the meeting was left on the basis that an attempt would be made to find a form of words that would not undermine what the Government seek to do but would, at the same time, allow the courts to look afresh at the idea of departing from the rate—although one would of course not want them to do so as a matter of course or have any unnecessary delay or expense in going through these complicated cases just to achieve a different rate. It would have to be a case that really justified such attention.

Some points can be drawn from Wells that may be relevant to my point. First, I was looking at the award in the form of a capital sum—we are talking about that rather than what the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was talking about a moment ago—in which the income will not be reinvested. The ordinary investor would reinvest the income to keep the capital sum as inflation-proof as possible, but in our case the income would be used to meet the needs of the injured party. At the same time, the injured party would be drawing on the capital sum, because it is a diminishing fund, the idea being that at the end of the claimant’s lifetime, or when the injuries have finally resolved themselves, there will be nothing left. So we have the extraordinary situation of a sum of money where the income cannot be used to protect against inflation and, at the same time, the sum is reducing. As Lord Lloyd of Berwick pointed out in Wells, if you are having to draw on the capital to meet these costs because the income is not good enough, in a diminishing market, that runs the real risk that the market may not recover sufficiently to bring the award up to the level needed to sustain the injured party for the rest of the period during which that party needs to be sustained. There is a difficult area here: in some cases, particularly if you alter the level of risk, you run into the possibility of the injured party not being fully compensated.

I seek by the amendment to suggest for the noble and learned Lord’s consideration a slightly different formula of words in that critical proposed new subsection that would enable the court to escape from the straitjacket of existing case law in cases that justify a fresh approach. On that basis, I have expanded a little on the formula of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, to draw attention to the need for this sum to be sufficiently large to meet the needs of the claimant for the rest of the period. It is in that context that I ask the noble and learned Lord to consider my amendment in deciding what best to do to avoid simply repeating a dead letter.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 73. It is an attempt not to change anything in the Bill, just to avoid some very unfortunate, superfluous wording. At the foot of page 9, it would delete the words,

“who has different financial aims”.

The effect of that deletion is to leave intact the wording cited just now—without what I would say are the offending last words—by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. It leaves intact the reference to an,

“assumption that relevant damages are invested using an approach that involves … less risk than would ordinarily be accepted by a prudent and properly advised individual investor”.

At that point I would put the full stop, as it is clear and sufficient to achieve the intended purpose. Adding on that this prudent and properly advised individual investor “has different financial aims” at best adds nothing, and at worst contradicts the earlier provisions about the basis for the rate of return, which appear in new paragraph 3(2).