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, subject only to the court's satisfaction under Damages Act 1996 s.2, and the defendants cannot now withhold consent. The Security Order did not require an express provision for the MIB's application to affect the binding nature of the PP Order.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 58 (QB)
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 is binding; MIB to bear its own costs.
Legal Topics
Periodical Payments, Damages Act 1996, Security of Payments, Settlement Agreements
Personal Injury Insurance Law Civil Procedure Periodical Payments Damages Act 1996 Security of Payments Settlement Agreements

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 2 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 after the court's interpretation and the MIB's application under the Security Order
  2. 2 Whether the defendants can withhold consent to the PP Order after the court's satisfaction under Damages Act 1996 s.2
  3. 3 Responsibility for costs incurred by the MIB

Ratio Decidendi

The periodical payments order of 14 July 2010 is binding on the defendants, subject only to the court's satisfaction under Damages Act 1996 s.2, and the defendants cannot now withhold consent. The Security Order did not require an express provision for the MIB's application to affect the binding nature of the PP Order.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The periodical payments order of 14 July 2010 is binding on the defendants.
  • The MIB shall bear its own costs.