Periodical payments indexing

In the February issue of PI Focus, under the heading ‘Thompstone decision is for claimant choice’, APIL emphasised the stern warning from the Court of Appeal in Thompstone v Tameside (27/LLp15) to defendants in catastrophic injury cases that it would not look kindly on any re-run of this sort of appeal. It quoted from the judgment of Waller LJ: ‘We hope that as a result of these proceedings, the National Health Service, and other defendants in proceedings that involve catastrophic injury, will now accept that the appropriateness of indexation on the basis of ASHE 6115 has been established after an exhaustive review of all possible objections to its use, both in itself and is applied to the recover of costs of care and case management. It will not be appropriate to re-open that issue in any future proceeding unless the defendant can produce evidence and argument significantly different from, and more persuasive than, that which has been deployed in the present case. Judges should not hesitate to strike out any defences that do not meet that requirement’.