From Eeles to Haynes: Interim Payments, Periodical Payments, and Accommodation Needs - Angus McCullough QC & Jessica Elliott, 1 Crown Office Row
19/09/14. A seriously injured claimant urgently requires alternative accommodation with adaptations for her disability, and space for necessary equipment, carers, and therapies. Liability has been admitted or compromised by the defendant, but any assessment of damages hearing will be many months hence. A suitable property has been identified that may be extended and adapted so as to meet the claimant’s needs. The claimant applies for an interim payment so that the property may be acquired and adaptation works undertaken. The defendant contends that the property identified is much bigger and more expensive than is reasonably required to meet the claimant’s needs and in any event is reluctant to make such a large payment on an interim basis.
Such situations, or similar, are familiar. The recent decision in Haynes v Kingston Hospital NHS Trust1 provides an opportunity to review the principles and pitfalls in making and resisting applications for substantial interim payments in personal injury cases in the 5 years since the Court of Appeal’s decision in Eeles v Cobham Hire Services Ltd2. In Eeles the Court of Appeal indicated the approach to be adopted in cases where a periodical payments order (PPO) might be made as part of the final remedy.
Image ©iStockphoto.com/Sohl
![Appeal judge rules that credit hire company has no costs liability following a finding of fundamental dishonesty in personal injury case: RSA v. Fastrack Solutions Limited [2023] 4 WLUK 92 - David Bowden, Erimus Chambers](/content/images/resized/images/stories/carkeys_72_72.jpg)
