header-logo header-logo

11 March 2010 / Christopher Sharp KC
Issue: 7408 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Not so catastrophic?

Christopher Sharp QC reports on Cobham Hire Services Ltd v Eeles: a year on

Part 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) makes provision for interim payments. This provision is frequently employed in personal injury claims, especially in claims for substantial damages arising out of catastrophic injuries, where immediate funding is required ahead of the final quantification of the claim for adapted housing, equipment, or expensive care regimes.

Frequently such provision is in the interests of both parties as early rehabilitation and the provision of appropriate housing, therapy and support will have a beneficial effect on the claimant’s recovery and may reduce the long-term cost of care. This is the principle which underlies the Rehabilitation Code and it makes sense for insurers and for claimants alike.
However, by virtue of the Damages Act 1996 s 2, a court awarding damages for future pecuniary loss in respect of personal injury, not only “may order that the damages are wholly or partly to take the form of periodical payment” but also “shall consider whether to make

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll