Interim Payments - Judges reject the Campbell argument
9 May 2008
In two cases on consecutive days in May David Clarke J and David Steel J rejected arguments advanced by the NHSLA to the effect that large interim payments to severely disabled children should not be awarded because to do so would prejudice the defendants.
In each case the injured child sought an interim payment of over £2 million in order to buy and adapt suitable accommodation. In each case the defendants argued that to do so would (a) prejudice the ability of the defendants to argue that the accommodation was inappropriate and should not be bought and (b) fetter the Court's ability to award periodical payments.
Both Judges considered that the prejudice to the defendants was theoretical rather than real. They adopted the approach that once the claimant had established that the interim payment sought was no more than a reasonable proportion of the likely final award there was no justification in declining to make the award in the absence of real and demonstrable prejudice. They took the view that although making a large interim payment might well reduce the options available to the trial judge and the parties when making an award or reaching a settlement that was not a good enough reason to deprive the claimant of money that was effectively his.
These cases represented an authoritative endorsement of the claimants' argument that the Court of Appeal decisions in Campbell v. Mylchreest [1999] PIQR Q17 and Tinsley v. Sarkar [2004] EWCA Civ 1098 were of limited general application.
Simeon Maskrey QC instructed by Messrs Darbys of Oxford appeared for both claimants.