The Gazette 1967/71

The judges ruled that certain items of the damages would attract an average annual interest of 6 per cent, and in some instances the interest would be payable for the period between the date of the accident and the court hearing. In exceptional cases, such as of gross delay, the court might reduce or increase the interest, or vary the periods for which it was allowed, Lord Denning said. The decision should stimulate a plaintiff's advisers to issue and serve the writ with out delay. " Delay only too often amounts to a denial of justice ", he added. The ruling did not surprise the insurance world, since it was known that a guideline had already gone out to judges suggesting 6 per cent. In the past it has never been known exactly how much interest judges have allowed in many cases the amount has been hidden in the award, especi ally where several years elapsed before the claim and the court settlement. " We shall be reviewing premium rates in the middle of this year ". one of the principal London companies told me recently. " By then we shall have seen the effects of recent wage awards and the higher steel prices for all our suppliers, and this must inevitably affect our rates." Lord Denning, sitting with Lord Justice Davies and Lord Justice Salmon, said interest should be given on damages for items of actual loss, such as loss of wages and medical and incidental expenses, from the date of the accident to the date of trial. No interest should be allowed on damages awarded for loss of future earnings. Damages awarded for loss of amenities should bear interest from the date of service of the writ to the date of the trial. Lord Denning explained that the rate of interest would be that allowed by the court on the short-term investment account, averaged over the period for which interest was awarded. The figure had risen from 5 per cent in 1965 to 7 per cent today, so that in most cases this year the average rate of interest might be taken as 6 per cent. Commenting on the judgment, the British Insurance Association said that it would increase the cost of claims on insurance policies (motor, employers' and public liability) " and hence, inevitably would cause insurance premiums to go 148

them Ireland .

. . were anxious that the subject

of enablement should have a place in the Judica ture Act we were considering." The committee decided that it would accede to this clause, if the substance of the terms of " a Quekett enablement could be agreed with the Government of Northern Ireland." Views were exchanged, " and as a con sequence we have reached agreement." The com mittee's detailed proposals on this point, men tioned above, are therefore agreed by the Northern Ireland Government. The members of the committee were : Lord MacDermott,; Mr. Justice Lowry; Mr. A. E. Anderson (Taxing Master of the Supreme Court); Dr. A. G. Donaldson (Director of Law Reform for Northern Ireland); Mr. J. R. Lindsay (Chief Probate Registrar of the Supreme Court); Mr. J. A. L. McLean (Permanent Secretary of the Supreme Court); Mr. J. A. Ringland (solicitor); and Mr. C. B. Shaw. Q.C. The secretary of the committee was Mr. C. W. Shannon. The report (Command Paper 4292, Stationery Office, £1) sets out draft clauses for a new Judi cature (Ireland) Act. The Act of 1877, as amended principally by the Government of Ireland Act. 1920) setting out the existing law on the Northern Ireand Supreme Court. COURT RULING ON MOTOR PREMIUM INTEREST A ruling by the Court of Appeal in Lon don recently on the amount of interest that courts should add to accident victims' damages is expected by insurance companies to cause a further rise in motor premiums, which are already undergoing a general increase of 10 per cent this year. The judges in Jefford v. Gee (4 March 1970) gave their ruling in an attempt to end confusion over the 1969 Administration of Justice Act, which made it obligatory for interest to be added but gave no guidance on the date or other matters. " Up and down the country people wanted to know the answer — trade unions, insurers, accountants, solicitors and barristers. Scores of cases have already come before the judges. Each has given a different answer. Such is the confusion that we feel it our duty to set out the auidelines."