1069 - 1711

Cru and Contrib

It has long been a source of irritation that, Scottish legislation did not allow us to reduce benefits and NHS charges repayable to the Compensation Recovery Unit in line with any deduction from a principal award for contributory negligence. Even in the event of a pursuer being found 50% to blame for his or her own accident, the defender was still obliged to repay all benefits and NHS charges in Scottish claims.

However, as of 29 January 2007, it has been possible to at least reduce NHS charges in line with any finding of contributory negligence, thanks to the terms of the Personal Injuries (NHS Charges) (Accounts) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 - which evidently were not drafted with the intention of the title tripping off the tongue...

However, there are two key points to note. The first is that these Regulations make no change in relation to recoverable benefits, which remain payable in full.

The second point is the question of how contributory negligence needs to be decided upon to satisfy the Unit. If there is a finding by a court, or a Joint Minute agreed by parties which disposes of a court action, clearly this will suffice. This will mean that it is not always to the benefit of a defender's insurers to have Decree of Absolvitor awarded, and maybe sometimes be wiser to address any split of liability decided upon expressly. If the case goes formally to mediation or alternative dispute resolution, the CRU will rely upon the formal outcome of this.

But what of the situation where parties reach an agreement by negotiation prior to litigation being raised which reflects a deduction for contributory negligence? Is it necessary to raise a friendly action and quickly conclude it by Joint Minute simply to have the court endorse a contributory negligence agreement? It seems possibly not.

If parties enter into a signed agreement, in a fair manner, which shows that the claimant and the compensator (not necessarily the same as the defender) agreed that damages payable were to be reduced to reflect contributory negligence, and states how that agreement was reached, the amount of damages payable on a full liability basis, the proportion by which damages were to be reduced and the names of those involved in the settlement procedure, then this may well suffice even where arrived at by informal correspondence, discussion and negotiation rather than by formal mediation or ADR.

We would be most interested to hear from any of you with past success in putting this into practice, and will be glad to share your experiences with others in future editions of SMIB!

Contributed by Lesley Allan

Subscribe to our news feeds

Keep up-to-date with all of our publications, legal updates, firm news and events.

Firm NewsLegal UpdatesSMIBEvents