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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll