The Keoghs Scotland team recently secured a successful defence of a quantum claim on behalf of Allianz UK. The trial, heard at Hamilton Sheriff Court, reinforces emerging Scottish case law indicating a departure from heavy reliance on the Judicial College Guidelines when assessing low-value, minor soft tissue injuries.
On 23 November 2023, the pursuer, Mrs C, was involved in a minor rear-end collision with the defender’s insured vehicle. Liability was admitted under the Compulsory Pre-Action Protocol for Scotland (CPAP).
Mrs C had a documented history of chronic back pain and had previously sustained neck and back injuries in a separate road traffic accident in February 2023. Following that earlier incident, she attended Accident & Emergency and consulted her general practitioner.
No medical attention was sought for the November collision. However, Mrs C’s insurer arranged physiotherapy, which she discontinued approximately two months post-accident. Subsequently, she was examined by a general practitioner who prepared a medico-legal report. The report concluded that Mrs C had suffered exacerbation of pre-existing neck and back pain, with a prognosis of four months for both injuries.
The pursuer’s claim comprised of:
A global offer of £3,100.00 was made by insurers under CPAP, which the pursuer rejected, leading to litigation in November 2024. Upon entering the action, the defender lodged a Minute of Tender for the same amount, reflecting the pre-litigation offer. This was again rejected by the pursuer.
The matter proceeded to a Diet of Proof in December 2025. At proof, the pursuer invited the court to award £3,500.00 in respect of solatium and £915.00 for the remaining heads of claim. The defender, in contrast, submitted that an appropriate award would be £1,800.00 for solatium and £415.00 for the remaining elements of the claim.
Both parties referred to the Judicial College Guidelines (“the Guidelines”) during submissions. However, the defender emphasised that recent Scottish authorities demonstrate a clear trend of courts awarding figures below those suggested by the Guidelines. While the Guidelines provided some assistance, the defender argued that greater weight should be afforded to decisions of the specialist All-Scotland Sheriff Personal Injury Court.
The court accepted the defender’s valuation of solatium, awarding the pursuer £1,800 together with £715 for the remaining heads of claim. Although the pursuer was expected to recover within four months, she had acknowledged being well on the road to recovery when she self-discharged from physiotherapy approximately two months post-accident.
It was noted that although the Guidelines provided some assistance, the court placed significant reliance on recent authority from the All-Scotland Sheriff Personal Injury Court. These decisions indicate a departure from the Guidelines’ valuations for minor soft tissue injuries to the neck and back. The court also considered the recent judgment in Suleman v One Insurance Ltd [2025] SC GLA 88, which examined the ongoing disparity between the Guidelines and Scottish authority.
The pursuer’s total award, inclusive of all heads of claim, was £2,515—almost £600 less than both the pre-litigation offer and the Minute of Tender (and resulting in expenses implications for the pursuer).
This decision underscores a growing trend in Scottish courts to move away from the Guidelines as a benchmark for valuing minor soft tissue injuries. Instead, the courts are placing greater emphasis on the specific facts of each case, including the nature and duration of symptoms, treatment history, and the impact on daily life. It also reinforces the strategic value of early and considered offers under the Compulsory Pre-Action Protocol.
Andrew Agnew, Solicitor, Keoghs Scotland, who ran the successful defence to trial, said:
“We are pleased with the outcome, which reinforces the importance of a fact-specific approach in Scottish courts when valuing minor injury claims. This decision provides clarity for insurers and practitioners alike, confirming that sole reliance on the Judicial College Guidelines is not the default position in Scotland.”
If you would like to discuss anything mentioned above further, please get in touch.
Andrew Agnew – Solicitor
The service you deliver is integral to the success of your business. With the right technology, we can help you to heighten your customer experience, improve underwriting performance, and streamline processes.
