Campbell v Mylchreest [1998] EWCA Civ 60 (23 January 1998)

Campbell v Mylchreest [1998] EWCA Civ 60 (23 January 1998)

The Court of Appeal held that, although the trial judge did not properly weigh the potential prejudice to the defendant (the 'level playing field' argument), the discretion to order an interim payment should be exercised in favour of the plaintiff because the payment would not materially prejudice the fairness of the trial, the sum was justified, and the intended use was subject to Court of Protection oversight.

Citation
[1998] EWCA Civ 60
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Heinz Michael Simon Campbell (by his Mother and Next Friend, Beatie Dorothea Campbell); Defendant/appellant: Michael Robinson Mylchreest (as Personal Representative of Lisa Helen Mylchreest, Deceased)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 January 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Order for Interim Payment Pending Assessment of Damages
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Payments, Damages Assessment, Discretion of Court, Level Playing Field, Contributory Negligence
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Interim Payments Damages Assessment Discretion of Court Level Playing Field Contributory Negligence

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heinz Michael Simon Campbell (by his Mother and Next Friend, Beatie Dorothea Campbell)

Plaintiff/respondent

Michael Robinson Mylchreest (as Personal Representative of Lisa Helen Mylchreest, Deceased)

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Order for Interim Payment Pending Assessment of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in granting an interim payment without properly considering the potential prejudice to the defendant (the 'level playing field' argument)
  2. 2 Whether the intended use of the interim payment could pre-empt the outcome of the assessment of damages

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that, although the trial judge did not properly weigh the potential prejudice to the defendant (the 'level playing field' argument), the discretion to order an interim payment should be exercised in favour of the plaintiff because the payment would not materially prejudice the fairness of the trial, the sum was justified, and the intended use was subject to Court of Protection oversight.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Stay on interim payment order removed
  • £100,000 to be paid into the Court of Protection forthwith from money currently standing in court