Rugby League and Rugby Union have common origins.
There are many similarities between the two codes.
Both kinds of rugby use an oval ball and play on a rectangular pitch with H-shaped goals.
Each plays two halves of 40 minutes. Passes must always go backwards. Tackling is a crucial element in each.
But there are significant differences as well.
There are 15 players in a Rugby Union team and 13 players in a Rugby League team. There are no lineouts in Rugby League. If a ruck or maul develops in Rugby Union there is a material chance that possession will change hands whereas in Rugby League possession is generally retained by the team which previously had possession – up to the point of the ‘sixth tackle’ when possession will automatically change hands according to the rules of Rugby League.
There are some who say that Rugby Union is played at a slower pace – with more stoppages – whereas Rugby League maintains a generally higher pace of play, with higher ball-in-play time than in Rugby Union.
The number of points a team gets awarded for a try or a penalty or a drop goal varies depending on which version of rugby you are playing.
Nevertheless, whichever way you’re playing the game, the overall aim is to score the most points in the time available and beat the opposing team by having a higher points total than them at the end of 80 minutes.
If a referee in a Rugby Union match suddenly started applying Rugby League rules it would be, at best, confusing, and, at worst, dangerous for the players.
Across the UK, personal injury compensation law is applied in a similar way across the various legal jurisdictions. There are significant similarities in approach but there are also some considerable differences, especially in the details. You risk confusion if you apply one country’s personal injury rules in a different part of the UK and, worse than that, you risk injustice.
Let’s consider the question of Liability.
Liability is about whether your claim will succeed at all. Is there a legal basis for establishing that any compensation is due to you at all?
In this area, the law is very similar between Scotland, on the one hand, and England and Wales on the other. The modern law of Negligence comes from a Scottish case which was finally decided in the House of Lords, at that time the highest civil court for the United Kingdom.
Whether you have been injured in a road traffic accident or an accident at work or an accident on premises or in a public place, the law which determines whether you can establish liability for the injuries you have suffered as a result of the accident is pretty much the same across the UK.
Next, let’s look at Quantum/valuation of claims.
There are a number of notable differences between the position North of the Border and elsewhere in relation to the valuation of claims for personal injury.
All parts of the UK will tend to rely on the Judicial College Guidelines for valuation of the injury part of personal injury claims. However, the way that the guidelines are applied can differ between different parts of the UK.
In England and Wales, a tariff system has been introduced for whiplash injuries arising from road traffic accidents. This whiplash tarrif scheme does not apply to Scotland. It means that the average awards for whiplash injuries in Scotland from road traffic accidents are higher than in England and Wales.
In England and Wales, the amounts than can be recovered are significantly lower than in Scotland.
In Scotland, there has been much more of an acknowledgement of ‘public opinion’ through decisions of juries in relation to bereavement damages. Compensation is assessed in fatal cases in Scotland according to the exact details of the relationship between the claimant and the deceased on a case by case basis whereas, in England and Wales, it is very much a one-size-fits-all approach to bereavement compensation.
Now, we take in a specific part of quantum/valuation, looking at what are known as Services claims.
In broad terms, this is where you can get compensation for situations where your injuries mean one or both of two things.
In the first place, it could be that your injuries mean that there are certain things you cannot do for yourself, especially during the early stages of your recovery from your injuries. The sorts of things envisaged include dressing yourself, washing yourself, cooking, doing housework, shopping, driving and even just emotionally-supporting yourself.
The second aspect relates to where your injuries prevent or limit you in doing things which you would ordinarily do for close relatives such as DIY, car maintenance or gardening.
In England and Wales there is a restriction on claims for services because they can only be claimed where the ‘lost’ services were significant in nature. On the other hand, in Scotland, where the position is governed by sections 8 and 9 of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1982, there is a much more pragmatic approach. There is no real threshold which injuries or services need to get above before you can justify a claim under the 1982 Act.
For an example of facts which have given rise to a successful claim in Scotland for services, including the value of the services element adjusted for inflation to give present day values, here is Beck -v- United Closures (2001).
Mr Beck’s hand was injured when it got trapped between the two heavy doors of a machine at work. According to the judge, Lord McEwan: “The pursuer said that for some weeks his wife had to help him with laces and buttons. … For services I award £500. It is true no figures or hourly rates were put in evidence. In a small claim like this I do not think that is needed.” Adjusting for inflation (factor of 2.29), these services would be valued at £1,145 in December 2025.
For an example of a more serious case (back pain and severe depression), in D -v- Graham’s Dairies (2016), £7,686 was appropriate for past services in terms of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 s.8 where, as a result of the accident, the relative had required to carry out an increased amount of household tasks for a total of 14 hours per week for a period of 78.5 weeks following the accident, which was calculated at a rate of £7 per hour. Applying an inflation factor of 1.51, £7 would equate to £10.57 in December 2025. £7,686 would increase to £11,606.
Examples of Scottish services cases.
The system for negotiating personal injury compensation claims in the UK relies, among other things, on the parties to the dispute agreeing which rules should apply to determining both liability and quantum.
In theory, it would not be possible, for example, to have some elements of the rules from England and Wales used in the same case as rules from Scots law.
But sometimes insurance companies have other ideas.
In a recent road traffic accident we dealt with from Elgin, Moray, our client had been the front seat passenger in a car which was T-boned by another vehicle at a crossroads.
Our client was travelling in the vehicle which had right of way at the junction. The third party vehicle collided with the passenger door immediately beside where our client was sitting. Our client suffered some direct impact injuries and also whiplash.
In this case, we did not have a dispute with the third party insurers about liability or the injury element of quantum. Liability was admitted by the Acorn Group in full, i.e. 100%.
However, the claim we made for our client for services was disputed. We alleged that our client had suffered injuries which meant that she needed help from relatives in the following ways. They needed help from their partner and their adult child for about 2 weeks post-accident, particularly with housework. This was principally because our client could not lift one of their arms due to shoulder pain.
The insurers response was that they had no offers for care provided by a family member unless it was required due to a “serious condition” suffered by the client as a result of the accident.
In the end, we reached an overall comprise with the insurers given that our client did not wish to have the hassle, uncertainty and delay of taking her claim to court.
The attitude of the third party insurers in this case is a worrying development.
An insurer refusing to apply the obvious correct choice of law smacks of arrogance and bullying.
It looks like the type of attitude we are seeing all too commonly more and more in this world where people who consider themselves to be very powerful (or at least more powerful than their opponent) simply use their power to get their way rather than any form of rational argument.
But who knew that insurers would be willing to go so far as to argue that “black is white”?
We ‘tried’ unsuccessfully to ‘convert’ the insurers to our way of thinking in this case.
For the future, we are adding to our standard intimation of claim letter a section which deals with services claims and asks the third party insurer at the outset to confirm that they will be willing to deal with any claim for necessary services and/or personal services in terms of the relevant Scots law under the 1982 Act and that they will not attempt to argue that England and Wales law applies to that (usually, relatively small) part of the claim though the remainder is governed by Scots law.
It’s another example of why ‘you can’t trust insurers’ and why you need to have your own independent legal advisor on your side to safeguard your interests if you are making a personal injury compensation claim.
How we can help.
We hope you have found this article helpful and that it has awakened you to the idea that insurers are not against applying the wrong law to a personal injury compensation claim if they think it will be to their financial advantage.
If you have got any questions about the article, please get in touch with us. If anything is not clear, we would like the opportunity to amend the terms of the article so that it is more helpful for readers.
Should you have any questions about our wider personal injury claims services, we would be glad to hear from you. You can contact us by using the form on this website or by calling us on 01343 544077.
We aim to help people in Moray to claim fair and full compensation for personal injury in such a way that it costs you nothing, whether your claim succeeds or not. We are specialist, accredited solicitors at Grigor & Young LLP, Elgin.
Give us a call on 01343 544077 or send us a Free Online Enquiry.
