Interim payments, periodical payments and provisional damages

Interim payments

A defendant may make a voluntary interim payment at anytime, including before proceedings have been issued. A claimant can make an application for an interim payment at any time after proceedings have been issued and the time provided for filing an acknowledgment of service has expired.

Pursuant to CPR 25.7, the court can only order a defendant to make an interim payment in one of the following situations:

•
the defendant has admitted liability to pay damages or some other sum of money to the claimant
•
the claimant has obtained judgment against the defendant for damages or some other sum to be assessed (this does not include costs)
•
the court is satisfied that, if the claim went to trial, the claimant would obtain judgment against that defendant for a substantial sum of money (other than costs)

Where an interim payment has been made, the amount will be deducted from any final award to pay money or damages.

For further guidance see: Introduction to interim payments in personal injury claims and Applying for an interim payment order in personal injury

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

Claim for credit hire not defeated by lack of MOT (Ali v HSF Logistics Polska Sp ZOO)

Personal injury and clinical negligence analysis: This is the first time the Court of Appeal has considered the situation where credit hire charges are claimed following a road traffic collision damaging the claimant’s vehicle, yet the claimant’s damaged vehicle did not hold a valid MOT certificate at the time of the collision. Previous County Court decisions, and one Irish High Court decision, have held that such credit hire claims are unrecoverable based on illegality and/or causation arguments. In a rare second appeal, the Court of Appeal took a different view to the lower courts and allowed the credit hire charges to be recovered. It considered that the fact that the car did not have a valid MOT certificate did not prevent damages being recovered for loss of use. Further, it would be disproportionate to bar the claim on the grounds of illegality. Written by Jasmine Murphy, barrister, at Gatehouse Chambers.

ACSO criticises government's response to medical reporting process consultation

The Association of Consumer Support Organisations (ACSO) has expressed concern over the government's protracted response to the 2023 consultation on revisions to the medical reporting process for road traffic accident claims. The government plans to implement inflationary increases to fixed costs medical reports in 2025, marking an 11-year gap since fees were last set in 2014. ACSO highlights the detrimental impact on the medico-legal sector, noting a significant decrease in medical reporting organisations due to commercial challenges. The organisation criticises the inconsistency in reviewing fixed fees across civil justice, emphasising the resulting difficulties for firms in planning and investment. ACSO calls for the ongoing motor insurance taskforce to address these issues and consider the imbalance between defendant insurers and consumer representatives created by fixed costs.

Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—1 November 2024

The minutes of the CPR Committee (CPRC) meeting of 1 November 2024 (conducted in a hybrid format at The Rolls Building (Royal Courts of Justice) and via video conference) cover a number of issues including the Law Commission consultation on the law of contempt, Closed Material Procedure, Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, the outcome of the Workplace Claims consultation and costs budgeting light.

PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—19 December 2024

This week's edition of PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights includes confirmation from the Court Funds Office on a further reduction in interest rates for basic and special accounts, and details of the MOJ’s response to a consultation on revisions to the medical reporting process for road traffic accident claims. We consider a decision that found the Court of Protection did have jurisdiction to determine a dispute over the claimant’s deputy’s release from reverse indemnity undertakings and a clinical negligence case where anonymity was refused as materials already in the public domain about the claimant’s health rendered any attempt at anonymisation futile and unjustified. We also bring you our usual roundup of other news, cases and New Law Journal articles of interest.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News