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 court must decide an interim payment application on the evidence before it. Where the claimant adduces cogent expert evidence on causation and the defendant fails to provide any substantive expert reasoning or evidence in response, the court is entitled to conclude that the claimant has satisfied the test in CPR 25.7(1)(c) and to order an interim payment. The mere assertion that the defendant's case is supported by expert opinion, without particulars or reasoning, is insufficient to defeat the application.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 443 (QB)
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 in Clinical Negligence, Expert Evidence, Civil Procedure Rules (cpr) 25.7, Appeals Procedure
Tort Law Medical Negligence Civil Procedure Interim Payments Causation in Clinical Negligence Expert Evidence Civil Procedure Rules (cpr) 25.7 Appeals Procedure

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 law in granting an interim payment to the Claimant in the absence of the Defendant's expert evidence on causation
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant was required to adduce expert evidence or reasoning in response to the Claimant's expert evidence at the interim payment stage
  3. 3 Whether the court should decide interim payment applications solely on the evidence before it at the time of the application

Ratio Decidendi

The court must decide an interim payment application on the evidence before it. Where the claimant adduces cogent expert evidence on causation and the defendant fails to provide any substantive expert reasoning or evidence in response, the court is entitled to conclude that the claimant has satisfied the test in CPR 25.7(1)(c) and to order an interim payment. The mere assertion that the defendant's case is supported by expert opinion, without particulars or reasoning, is insufficient to defeat the application.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal dismissed
  • No need to consider the claimant's application to set aside the stay