High Court makes key ruling in relation to CICA awards under the 1990 Scheme



The High Court today refused to overturn the way that the CICA assesses awards for the victims of crime under its 1990 Scheme in the case of LSX v Criminal Injury Compensation Authority. The effect is that although the scheme is meant to provide for full compensation, the award will run out half way through the Claimant’s life. The case was a judicial review heard by Mr Justice Jay at the Royal Courts of Justice, London.

The Claimant suffered severe brain damage as a baby when he ingested his mother’s methadone at their home and is in need of life long care. The CICA had calculated his award by assessing a lump sum award for future losses with a 2.5% discount rate.

The claimant contended that the true discount rate, as the expert actuarial evidence of Mr Chris Daykin, the former Government Actuary, accepted by the CICA showed, should be 0% for RPI related items and minus 1.5% for earnings related items. This approach would be consistent with an earlier decision of the Privy Council called Helmot v Simon in a case from Guernsey where, as with the CICA, the highly contentious 2.5% discount rate set by the Lord Chancellor under the Damages Act 1996 does not apply.

The accepted evidence in the case showed that instead of the award lasting for the claimant’s lifetime, the award for his care would run out half way through his lifetime. It was contended, on is behalf, that this result does not provide the full compensation that the common law and the CICA Scheme requires.

Note: under later CICA Schemes awards have been capped at £500,000, but that does not apply to cases still being dealt with under the 1990 Scheme.

The court has yet to decide on whether an appeal to the Court of Appeal should be allowed.

Grahame Aldous QC and Laura Begley of 9 Gough Chambers acted for the Claimant instructed by Stuart Brazington of Withy King.

Featured Counsel

Grahame Aldous KC

Call 1979 | Silk 2008

Latest News & Events

The Dekagram: 20th May 2024

We trust that our readers have been enjoying the Spring sunshine; the team have spent their time in the sun wisely, reading cases so you don’t have to. First we noted a decision which considers the interplay between English and Scottish guardianship; secondly we read…

The Dekagram: 13th May 2024

Last week brought the news that the Australian airline Qantas and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission have agreed to resolve their dispute over cancelled flights by asking the court to impose a $100 million fine, together with an undertaking by the airline to pay…

Max Melsa appears in Court of Appeal in Re D (Children: Interim Care Order: Hair Strand Testing) [2024] EWCA Civ 498

Max Melsa represented the children, through their Children’s Guardian, in the first case to reach the Court of Appeal specifically dealing with the interpretation of Hair-Strand Tests in care proceedings. The appeal was made by the mother against the interim separation of three children from…

Subscribe to our mailing list

Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR

© Deka Chambers 2024


Portfolio Builder

Select the expertise that you would like to download or add to the portfolio

Download    Add to portfolio   
Title Type CV Email

Remove All


Click here to share this shortlist.
(It will expire after 30 days.)