Jonathan Scriven analyses the need to balance a claimant’s immediate capital needs against their long term financial security
he High Court in Johnson v Compton Cooke [2009] EWHC 2582 (QB) has followed the guidance given earlier this year by the Court of Appeal in Eeles v Cobham Hire Services [2009] EWCA Civ 204 to ensure that a claimant is not awarded an excessive interim payment which could result in insufficient monies being available to fund a Periodic Payments Order (PPO) at the conclusion of a case.
Interim Payment Framework
In high value personal injury claims it is common for substantial interim payments to be made during the lifetime of the claim.
Prior to the amendment of the Damages Act 1996 and the inception of PPO’s the courts would make a broad assessment of the final value of the claim and then award an appropriate interim payment.
Since it is now possible to make a PPO in respect of some or all of the claimant’s future heads of loss, the courts have had to revisit the method of assessing interim payments to ensure that they are
