Bennett v Stephens & Anor [2012] EWHC 58 (QB) (25 January 2012)

Bennett v Stephens & Anor [2012] EWHC 58 (QB) (25 January 2012)

The periodical payments order of 14 July 2010 is binding on the defendants, as the parties had agreed to such an order subject only to the court's satisfaction regarding the security of payments, and the Security Order's lack of express provision for the MIB's application does not render the PP Order non-binding.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 58
Parties
Claimant: Anthony Nathaniel Bennett; 1st Defendant: Leonard John Stephens; 2nd Defendant: Zenith Insurance Company; Interested Party: Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Post Judgment Application Regarding Periodical Payments Order
Outcome
Application granted; PP Order held binding; MIB to bear its own costs.
Legal Topics
Periodical Payments, Damages Act 1996, Settlement Orders, Motor Insurance Bureau Liability
Personal Injury Insurance Law Civil Procedure Periodical Payments Damages Act 1996 Settlement Orders Motor Insurance Bureau Liability

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 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Nathaniel Bennett

Claimant

Leonard John Stephens

1st Defendant

Zenith Insurance Company

2nd Defendant

Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB)

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Post Judgment Application Regarding Periodical Payments Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the periodical payments order (PP Order) of 14 July 2010 is binding on the defendants
  2. 2 Whether the defendants can withhold consent to the PP Order after judgment
  3. 3 Responsibility for costs incurred by the Motor Insurance Bureau

Ratio Decidendi

The periodical payments order of 14 July 2010 is binding on the defendants, as the parties had agreed to such an order subject only to the court's satisfaction regarding the security of payments, and the Security Order's lack of express provision for the MIB's application does not render the PP Order non-binding.

Court Disposition

Application granted; PP Order held binding; MIB to bear its own costs.

Orders

  • The periodical payments order of 14 July 2010 is binding on the defendants.
  • The Motor Insurance Bureau is to bear its own costs.