In Harries v Stevenson33 the claimant brought a claim for future loss. It was suggested that the application of the discount rate of 2.5 % would, if a lump sum award were to be made, result in the claimant being significantly undercompensated. On consideration of whether the claimant could challenge the discount rate, Morgan J repeated the test of Warriner v Warriner,34 i.e. that in order for the claimant to bring his case within the exception to the discount rate under section 1(2) of the Damages Act 1996 he had to show that his case either (1) fell within a category which the Lord Chancellor did not take into account or (2) had special features which (a) were material to the choice of the rate of return and (b) were shown from an examination of the Lord Chancellor’s reasons not to have been taken into account. Morgan J was of the view that the procedural change that both parties to an action no longer had to consent to any order for periodical payments before a court could order one did not make the instant case fall into a category which the Lord Chancellor had not contemplated in 2001.