Clair Sellar-Elliott v Howling [2016] EWHC 443 (QB) (03 March 2016)

Clair Sellar-Elliott v Howling [2016] EWHC 443 (QB) (03 March 2016)

The application for permission to appeal was refused because the Master was entitled to decide the interim payment application on the evidence before him. The Defendant, having chosen not to provide substantive expert reasoning or evidence to counter the Claimant's compelling expert report, could not defeat the application by relying solely on pleadings and solicitor statements. The Master applied the correct legal test and was justified in concluding the Claimant met the standard for an interim payment.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 443
Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Clair Sellar-Elliott; Defendant / Appellant: Dr Sarah Howling
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Clinical Negligence Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Interim Payment Order
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Interim Payments, Causation, Expert Evidence, Appeals, CPR 25.7
Clinical Negligence Civil Procedure Interim Payments Causation Expert Evidence Appeals CPR 25.7

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clair Sellar-Elliott

Claimant / Respondent

Dr Sarah Howling

Defendant / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Clinical Negligence Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Interim Payment Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred in granting an interim payment where the Defendant had not yet served expert evidence on causation
  2. 2 Whether a Defendant must provide substantive expert evidence or reasoning to resist an interim payment application when the Claimant has served compelling expert evidence
  3. 3 Whether the court should decide interim payment applications solely on the evidence before it

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to appeal was refused because the Master was entitled to decide the interim payment application on the evidence before him. The Defendant, having chosen not to provide substantive expert reasoning or evidence to counter the Claimant's compelling expert report, could not defeat the application by relying solely on pleadings and solicitor statements. The Master applied the correct legal test and was justified in concluding the Claimant met the standard for an interim payment.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal against the interim payment order is refused.