Mixed Injury Cases: Rabot v Hassam

On the 20^th February 2024, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the appeal of Rabot v Hassam and Briggs v Laditan, two test cases regarding valuing mixed injuries. The outcome of this is highly anticipated by claimant and defendant solicitors alike due to the wide-ranging affect this will have on the car insurance industry and RTA personal injury as a whole.

What are mixed injuries and how are they assessed?

Mixed injuries refers to injuries which include whiplash and non-whiplash injuries. There can often be an overlap in the areas of these injuries, e.g. whiplash in the shoulders can overlap with pain in the arms and wrist. Whiplash injuries, i.e. pain in the neck, shoulders and back, are assessed on a tariff system following the Whiplash Regulations of 2021, which also saw the introduction of the Official Injury Claim Portal for claims up to £5,000. The compensation for whiplash injuries are now fixed based on this tariff and worth substantially less. Non-whiplash injuries are valued on a scale depending on severity, length and overall effect on life, which can be found in the Judicial College Guidelines. These injuries can include soft tissue injuries in joints, bruises, fractures, psychological injuries, etc.

Defendants arguments for mixed injuries

Defendants argue that mixed injuries should be valued on the severity of the whiplash only, i.e. whiplash, pain in the wrists and bruises on the knees should be assessed on the whiplash tariff only. Claimants argue these should be valued separately from the whiplash, i.e. pain in the wrists and the bruising to the knees is assessed separately from the whiplash tariff and attracts a higher award.

A decision was reached in the Court of Appeal in January 2023 in the Claimant’s favour, which applied the following guidelines in how to approach valuing these claims:

1. Assess the tariff award with reference to the Whiplash Regulations 2021;
2. Assess the award for non-tariff injuries with reference to the Judicial College Guidelines;
3. “Step back” to carry out a Sadler adjustment, i.e. determine the overlap of the injuries and adjust the award accordingly; and
4. Ensure the final award is not less than the amount awarded for the non-tariff injuries if they had been the only injuries suffered by the claimant.

Should Defendants be successful in their appeal against this, this would substantially lower the value of compensation awards in Road Traffic Accidents in the Personal Injury Market which could see less solicitors willing to take on this type of work.

The judgement has been reserved and we await the decision.

How can Taylor Bracewell’s Personal Injury team assist you?