The claimant had received andpound;100,000 in interim payments on his personal injury claim, and now sought a further similar sum.
Held: The claim was thought substantial, but the defendants said that any final award would include an arrangement for continuing care, and a further payment would prejudice the court’s ability to make such an award. This was a case where a judge could not be expected to wish to make a Periodical Payments Order, and the Eeles principles did not apply. The order was made for a further payment on accunt.
 EWHC 2907 (QB)
Damages Act 1996 2
England and Wales
Cited – Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust v Thompstone and others CA 17-Jan-2008
The court set out the legal principles applying when making a Periodical Payments Order in an award of damages for serious personal injury. The periodical payments payable to the claimant in respect of his care costs should be calculated by . .
Cited – Cobham Hire Services Ltd v Eeles CA 13-Mar-2009
The court was asked what is the correct approach to the making of an interim payment in a heavy personal injury claim where the damages, when finally assessed, are likely to include one or more periodical payments orders pursuant to section 2 of the . .
Cited – Rowe v Dolman CA 23-Jul-2008
The claimant had been very severely injured in a road accident. The court was asked to determine the effect on his life expectancy, the experts had diverged as to the appropriate range of life expectancy.
Held: The judge had assessed the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Damages, Personal Injury
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.379561