Document Type : Research Paper

Author

• Zeinab Tari

Ph.D. Graduate, Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

This study explores the legal and financial mechanisms used in the calculation and compensation of future damages in cases of personal injury and death, with a particular focus on the use of the Ogden Tables in the United Kingdom and their comparison with the Iranian legal system. The paper is divided into two major parts: (1) lump-sum compensation using actuarial tools such as the Ogden Tables, and (2) periodic payments as an alternative to lump-sum awards. The research highlights the advantages, disadvantages, and legal framework governing each method and evaluates the adaptability of these mechanisms within the Iranian context.

Lump-Sum Compensation and the Ogden Tables

In the UK, accurate estimation of future losses in personal injury and fatal accident cases is often conducted using the Ogden Tables. These tables, first published in 1999 and later approved by the House of Lords in Wells v Wells, serve as a standardized tool for calculating the present value of future financial losses such as lost income, medical expenses, and care costs.
The Ogden Tables incorporate multiple factors to produce actuarially sound multipliers that convert anticipated annual losses into a single present-day value. These factors include:

Discount Rate: A key determinant that reflects the anticipated rate of return on invested compensation. A lower discount rate (e.g., -0.25%) leads to a higher multiplier and consequently a larger compensation amount.
Mortality and Life Expectancy: Derived from official statistics, this factor increases the multiplier for younger claimants due to longer expected benefit periods.
Timing of Payment: The choice between immediate and deferred compensation (e.g., beginning at retirement age) significantly affects the calculation.

Despite economic variables such as inflation not directly influencing the multipliers, adjustments to the discount rate by the government aim to indirectly account for economic trends.

Application of Probabilistic Adjustments (Ogden Tables A to D)

When future losses are subject to significant uncertainty, such as in cases of severe disability, the Ogden Tables A to D are used in conjunction with the primary tables. These adjustments factor in the likelihood of events such as premature death, unemployment, and partial or total inability to return to work.
For instance, in estimating future lost earnings, variables like the claimant’s age, gender, education, pre- and post-injury employment status, and residual earning capacity are analyzed. The process involves applying probabilistic reduction factors (from Tables A–D) to base multipliers (from the primary Ogden Tables).
An illustrative example in the paper details the case of a 35-year-old woman who suffered a disability. Using the tables, her pre-injury and post-injury earning capacities were assessed and compared, leading to a calculated future loss of income of £648,350.

Structured or Periodic Payments

Under the Damages Act 1996 and the Damages (Variation of Periodical Payments) Order 2005, UK courts are empowered—and in certain cases obliged—to order periodic payments instead of lump sums. This system allows for greater financial security and adaptability for the injured party, particularly in long-term or life-long injury cases.
Advantages of Periodic Payments

Lifetime Coverage: Unlike lump-sum payments, periodic payments provide ongoing financial support throughout the claimant’s life.
Tax Efficiency: While both methods are tax-exempt, periodic payments avoid investment-related tax liabilities.
Prevention of Mismanagement: Structured payments minimize the risk of misuse of funds by the claimant.
Inflation Adjustment: Payments can be indexed to inflation and rising care costs, unlike static lump sums.
Risk Mitigation: Claimants are shielded from investment and longevity risks.

Disadvantages and Limited Use
Despite the benefits, periodic payments are less frequently ordered due to several practical and institutional challenges:

Higher Funding Costs: Maintaining a secure payment stream can cost up to one-third more than a lump sum.
Complex Needs Assessment: Accurate forecasting of future medical and care needs is difficult.
Administrative Burden: Courts may be reluctant to manage ongoing financial arrangements.

Consequently, structured settlements are typically used only when both parties consent.

Periodic Payments in Iranian Law

While the Iranian legal system does not have a structured periodic payment scheme comparable to that in the UK, some analogous mechanisms exist:

a) Diyya (Blood Money)

Under Articles 488 and 490 of the Islamic Penal Code, courts may allow the payment of diyya in installments over one to three years, especially when the defendant lacks financial capacity for a lump sum. Although primarily a facilitation for the debtor, this provision functions similarly to periodic payments by accounting for inflation and cost of living.

b) Mastamari (Annuity)

Articles 3 and 5 of the Iranian Civil Liability Act empower courts to order annuity-style payments when future damages are uncertain. This approach is particularly suitable for compensating long-term income loss due to permanent disability. Courts may also index these annuities based on national minimum wage standards to preserve purchasing power.

c) Instalment Payment of Damages

Article 277 of the Civil Code permits courts to allow deferred payments in hardship cases. Though functionally similar to structured payments, it lacks the sophistication and flexibility of UK periodic payment orders.

Adaptability and Flexibility of Orders

In the UK, courts can issue “open judgments” allowing for future modification of periodic payments based on changing circumstances. This legal flexibility, embedded in the Damages Act 1996, permits courts to reassess compensation in response to medical or life changes.
In Iran, Article 5 of the Civil Liability Act enables the court to revise a judgment within two years if new facts (such as a need for additional surgery or a newly discovered injury) arise. Separate claims may also be filed for new losses that are materially distinct from the original adjudicated damages.
Conclusion
The paper concludes that while the UK system of damages—particularly the use of the Ogden Tables and structured settlements—offers a comprehensive and adaptive model for future loss compensation, elements of this model can be integrated into Iranian law through creative use of existing mechanisms such as annuities and judicial discretion. Legal reforms that move toward a more flexible, need-based system of periodic compensation could better align Iran’s civil liability framework with international best practices and enhance fairness for injury victims.

Keywords

• Future Pecuniary Losses
• Personal Injuries
• Ogden Tables
• Discount Rate
• Damage Assessment
• Iranian Law
• English Law

Main Subjects

• Private Law