EF v Darkwa & Anor [2019] EWHC 1005 (QB) (17 April 2019)

EF v Darkwa & Anor [2019] EWHC 1005 (QB) (17 April 2019)

The application for a further interim payment is refused because there is a real risk that the trial judge may conclude that the claimant's past losses for care and accommodation should be reduced by significant margins due to failure to mitigate and the questionable necessity of the current care regime. Any further payment would risk overpayment beyond a reasonable proportion of the likely final judgment.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1005 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: EF (acting by his litigation friend, GH); First Defendant: Annys Jane Darkwa; Second Defendant: The Motor Insurers Bureau (acting through its agent, Direct Line Group)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Interim Payment Application Following Partial Settlement on Liability; Quantum in Dispute Pending Trial
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Interim Payments, Mitigation of Loss, Assessment of Damages, Care Costs, Accommodation Costs
Personal Injury Civil Procedure Interim Payments Mitigation of Loss Assessment of Damages Care Costs Accommodation Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EF (acting by his litigation friend, GH)

Claimant

Annys Jane Darkwa

First Defendant

The Motor Insurers Bureau (acting through its agent, Direct Line Group)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Interim Payment Application Following Partial Settlement on Liability; Quantum in Dispute Pending Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to a further interim payment of £275,000 pending trial
  2. 2 Whether the current care and accommodation regime is reasonable and necessary
  3. 3 Whether the claimant failed to mitigate his losses

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a further interim payment is refused because there is a real risk that the trial judge may conclude that the claimant's past losses for care and accommodation should be reduced by significant margins due to failure to mitigate and the questionable necessity of the current care regime. Any further payment would risk overpayment beyond a reasonable proportion of the likely final judgment.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • No further interim payment to be made pending trial
  • Costs to be considered by agreement or further hearing if not agreed