division_name: Civil Liability Bill [Lords] &#8212; Damages for whiplash injuries
motion: <p class="indent" pid="c188.3/3" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;The effect of whiplash injuries, with which we are concerned, can vary substantially according to the physical and mental sturdiness of the victim. This means that the appropriate amount  of damages for a whiplash injury can vary substantially... I suggest that they are not suited to a fixed cap, as proposed by the Government.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c188.3/5" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;offends an important principle of justice, because it reduces the damages that will be received by an honest litigant because of the activities of dishonest litigants.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c188.3/7" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;interfere with the Judicial College guidelines by substituting tariffs or a cap, which lack the flexibility of the guidelines.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c188.3/9" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;is motivated, at least in part, not by the normal principles of justice as I understand them but by saving insurers money, in the belief that this will result in a reduction in premiums for motorists who are insured when they come to pay for their insurance.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c188.3/11" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;There is no precedent for this intervention in the assessment of damages in civil proceedings.&#8221;&#8212;[Official Report, House of Lords, <phrase class="date" code="2018-06-12">12 June</phrase> 2018; Vol. 791, c. 1593-1595.]</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c188.3/13" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;It is the function of judges (not Parliament) to set the tariffs for pain, suffering and loss of amenities in respect of different categories of personal injuries&#8221;.</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c188.3/15" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;I have met many a claimant for whom the difference in damages now proposed by the introduction of the tariff, taking some damages from four figures&#8212;&#163;1,200 or &#163;1,400&#8212;down to the likes of &#163;470 is a significant matter for many peoples&#8217; incomes up and down this country. I cannot have it portrayed that this might not make a great deal of difference to many ordinary people in the country.&#8221;&#8212;[Official Report, House of Lords, <phrase class="date" code="2018-06-12">12 June</phrase> 2018; Vol. 791, c. 1611.]</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c191.1/3" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;results in injustice and it is known to result in injustice. Indeed, no one can deny that it results in injustice. There has never been a case where legislation deliberately introduces injustice into our law. It may be that it is only in regard to small claims, but surely it is important that we pause before we do that.&#8221;&#8212;[Official Report, House of Lords, <phrase class="date" code="2018-06-12">12 June</phrase> 2018; Vol. 791, c. 1620.]</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c193.0/2" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;I am in broad agreement with the whole idea of tariffs for injuries, certainly for lesser injuries, and indeed even of reducing awards in respect of a number of these lesser injuries.&#8221;&#8212;[Official Report, House of Lords, <phrase class="date" code="2018-05-10">10 May</phrase> 2018; Vol. 791, c. 306.]</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c193.1/4" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;What I cannot accept is a solution which means that a dishonest claim is handled in exactly the same way as an honest one. We cannot have dishonesty informing the way in which those who have suffered genuine injuries are dealt with. That is simply not justice. There should not be any idea that an honest claim for a whiplash injury made by the victim of a car accident should be less well compensated than an identical injury suffered by someone at work.&#8221;&#8212;[Official Report, House of Lords, <phrase class="date" code="2018-06-12">12 June</phrase> 2018; Vol. 791, c. 1600.]</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c201.2/2" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;Whiplash is an innovation of fertile legal minds which has no real foundation in medical knowledge. Everybody knows the vast majority of whiplash claims are completely unjustified. I support any measures to eliminate soft-tissue injuries.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c205.2/5" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;Regulations made by the Lord Chancellor may provide for a court&#8212;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c205.2/6" pwmotiontext="yes">(a) to determine that the amount of damages payable for pain, suffering and loss of amenity in respect of one or more whiplash injuries is an amount greater than the tariff amount relating to that injury&#8221;.</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c213.1/4" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;do not go far enough and that an outright ban should be introduced.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c214.0/4" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;lesser injuries were altogether too generously compensated, certainly in comparison to the graver injuries&#8221;.&#8212;[Official Report, House of Lords, <phrase class="date" code="2018-05-10">10 May</phrase> 2018; Vol. 791, c. 306.]</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c215.0/6" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;in relation to one or more whiplash injuries, the amount specified in respect of the injury by regulations under section 3(2)&#8221;.</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c215.0/8" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;amount of damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity payable in respect of the whiplash injury or injuries&#8221;.</p>
  
  <p class="italic" pid="c217.0/2" pwmotiontext="yes">The House divided:</p>
  
  <p pid="c217.0/3" pwmotiontext="yes">Ayes 243, Noes 298.</p>