We now have the Court of Appeal judgment on the cases of Rabot and Briggs. Nicola Davies LJ referenced the case Sadler v Filipiac (2011) and provided the following guidance for courts to assess mixed injury claims:

(i) Assess the tariff award by reference to the Regulations (the tariff table)

(ii) Assess the award for the non-tariff injuries on common law principles (using the Judicial College (JC) Guidelines and case law)

(iii) “Step back” in order to carry out the Sadler adjustment, recognising the sum included in the tariff award for the whiplash component is unknown but is smaller than it would be if damages for the whiplash component had been assessed applying common law principles.

There is one caveat that the final award cannot be less than would be awarded for the non-tariff injuries if they had been the only injuries suffered by the claimant. Nicola Davies LJ added that any fear of windfall is negated by the depressed value of tariff damages.

Stuart Smith LJ agreed with Nicola Davies LJ adding that it is not for the courts to extend the effect of the 2018 Act and remove the right to common law assessment of non-whiplash injuries. If such a step is to be taken, it must be taken by Parliament.

In his dissent, the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos felt that if the additional injuries did not cause any additional pain, suffering and loss of amenity over the whiplash injuries, seeking more than the tariff would violate the 2018 Act. His approach was to first apply the tariff, then work out the consequences of the additional injury and assess the common law consequences.