The new edition: three key headlines

1. The adjustment for RPI inflation in the 18^th edition is as expected and it is no surprise that the editors will not get involved in the debate about a possible replacement index.
2. The extent to which the editors’ steer to adjust for ongoing inflation, repeated again in this new edition, is reflected in claims handling and when considering offers made and received, will require close scrutiny in practice.
3. As always, those types of injury where a different or more nuanced approach has been taken in this edition should be examined carefully.

Overview

The 18^th edition of the guidelines, published on 9 April 2026, reflects previous practice of generally increasing the guideline figures for general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity to reflect the change in retail prices inflation index (RPI) since publication of the previous edition. The increase in general damages is +8.3% (subject to rounding adjustments). This is entirely as expected, based on the movement in the RPI since 2023.

Inflation

As with the previous edition, the editors provide two further comments on allowing for inflation.

• First, that the debate around replacing RPI with a different index – whether CPI, CPIH or something else entirely – is a matter for the courts and not within the competency of the editors. Whether this is tested before the senior courts in the few years that remain before RPI is discontinued (expected to be in 2030) remains to be seen.
• Second is a further reminder that, in the view of the editors, the published figures should be further adjusted to reflect inflation at the time the calculation is made. The text suggests that such an adjustment “should be applied to ensure that figures remain up to date between publication of editions.” 

Areas of difference

The new edition records “some quite significant changes” to the sections - both the text and the figures - dealing with awards for epilepsy and in cases of sexual / physical abuse. There is also a new section addressing cases involving miscarriage.

Each of these areas should be regarded as being outside the general RPI increase in guideline figures and should therefore be analysed separately.

Multiple injuries and other issues

There is no new guidance on claims involving multiple injuries. The text simply sets out and adopts the key passage from the leading case Sadler v Filipak (see its paragraph 34 via the link).

Nor is there extensive commentary on the 10% increase in general damages brought about in 2013 by the Jackson reforms. The authors simply point out that, aside from mesothelioma claims and those pursued in other jurisdictions - i.e. Scotland, very few claims nowadays will attract pre-2013 levels of general damages.

Once again, there is a separate section on whiplash injuries which now sets out both the 2021 and 2025 tariffs as prescribed in regulations made under the Civil Liability Act 2018 (which applies where the symptoms endure for less than two years). It also summarises the pragmatic approach taken by the Supreme Court in Rabot v Hassam to assessing cases in which the claimant has sustained a combination of tariff and non-tariff injuries  (read our commentary on the decision here). A final comment in this section notes that there is no guidance in the statutory scheme for cases in which the injury sustained falls within the scheme and amounts to an acceleration of a pre-existing condition.

Aside from level of the increase in awards per se, it is also worth bearing in mind that higher levels of general damages combined with the effects of economic inflation more widely are factors that are likely to have an effect on the appropriate claims portal and/or the level of court track and scale of fixed recoverable costs that may apply.