Clair Sellar-Elliott v Howling

Clair Sellar-Elliott v Howling

The court must decide interim payment applications on the evidence before it; in this case, the claimant's expert evidence was compelling and uncontradicted, and the defendant's mere assertion of supportive expert evidence was insufficient to defeat the application. The Master was entitled to conclude that the claimant had proved, to the requisite standard, that the conditions in CPR 25.7(1)(c) were met.

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

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 9 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 Claim / Application for Permission to Appeal Interim Payment Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court was correct to grant an interim payment in the absence of detailed expert evidence from the defendant
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was unfairly penalised for not serving expert evidence prior to the court-ordered timetable
  3. 3 Whether the evidential burden on an interim payment application was properly applied

Ratio Decidendi

The court must decide interim payment applications on the evidence before it; in this case, the claimant's expert evidence was compelling and uncontradicted, and the defendant's mere assertion of supportive expert evidence was insufficient to defeat the application. The Master was entitled to conclude that the claimant had proved, to the requisite standard, that the conditions in CPR 25.7(1)(c) were met.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • No need to consider the claimant's application to set aside the stay
  • Interim payment order of £100,000 stands