The latest from Minster Law, who issue a warning that confusion opens the door to future claims and disputes based on perceived grievances;
A leading personal injury law firm is calling for sector-wide guidance on compensation calculations for transgender claimants, warning that current uncertainty could lead to vastly different awards for identical cases.
Minster Law has highlighted a significant gap in professional guidance following the Supreme Court’s ruling that sex under the Equality Act means ‘biological’ sex, creating uncertainty over which actuarial tables should be used when calculating future losses for transgender serious injury claimants.
The firm’s analysis shows that the choice between male and female Ogden tables – the actuarial tools used to calculate future financial losses in serious injury cases – could result in compensation differences of up to six-figure for a single claimant, depending on which approach their solicitor takes.
Stuart Hanley, Director of Legal Practice at Minster Law, said: “We’re facing a situation where two identical transgender claimants could receive vastly different compensation purely based on their solicitor’s interpretation of which Ogden table to apply. The differences aren’t trivial – they can exceed six figures in serious injury cases.”
“This isn’t just about individual fairness – bit also the risk of undermining confidence in the compensation system itself. Without clear guidance, we’re creating a compensation lottery that serves no one well.”
BIOLOGY AFFECTS AVERAGE LIFESPANS
The issue arises because the Ogden tables provide separate male and female multipliers reflecting average longevity differences. Under current Ogden 8 tables, a 30-year-old male has a multiplier of 31.58 while a female of the same age has 33.93 – a difference of 2.35 that translates directly into compensation variations.
However, the factors underlying these life expectancy differences don’t align straightforwardly with birth sex for transgender individuals. Life expectancy variations can stem from complex interactions of biological factors (hormonal influences, cardiovascular differences), behavioural patterns (risk-taking, healthcare-seeking), and social circumstances that may change through gender transition.
Hanley explained: “The assumption that biological sex alone determines relevant life expectancy factors is overly simplistic. A transgender woman may be taking Oestrogen and living in ways that distance her from traditionally male behavioural risks, while transgender individuals as a group may face unique mortality factors not captured in standard actuarial tables.”
“The legal profession needs to move beyond assumptions and develop evidence-based approaches that ensure accurate compensation while maintaining actuarial integrity.”
Minster Law is advocating for coordinated guidance from professional bodies including the Law Society and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL), as well as recognition from government and the Ogden Working Party of the challenges facing practitioners.
The firm argues that without sector guidance, similar cases will continue to yield inconsistent outcomes, potentially exposing law firms to negligence claims while creating ethical dilemmas around securing client compensation versus respecting gender identity and privacy.
“Courts may currently rely on legal sex recorded on official documents when selecting multipliers, but this remains a developing and potentially sensitive area,” said Hanley.
“We need clear guidance on evidential standards for Ogden table selection and documentation requirements for case files,” said Hanley. “This will then inform what training and sensitivity measures individual firms need to implement. The alternative is a fragmented approach that helps no one.”
The call comes as the legal profession has successfully adapted to other equality-related procedural changes, including the Civil Procedure Rule Committee’s removal of mandatory honorifics and the OIC Claims Portal’s introduction of gender-neutral title options.
However, Ogden table selection presents unique challenges because it directly affects compensation quantum, with decisions potentially worth hundreds of thousands of pounds requiring evidence-based justification.
“The Supreme Court’s ruling was never intended to create inequality in personal injury compensation,” Hanley added. “But without professional guidance on its practical application, that’s precisely the risk we now face. The sector has an opportunity to lead by developing thoughtful approaches before inconsistent practices create unfairness and confusion.”
Be the first to comment