McLaughlin and Italian Coffee Holdings Limited (t/a Cafe Nero) & Ors [2025] NIMaster 11 (26 June 2025)

McLaughlin and Italian Coffee Holdings Limited (t/a Cafe Nero) & Ors [2025] NIMaster 11 (26 June 2025)

Plaintiff is entitled to a further interim payment due to urgent need; court cannot determine ultimate liability among defendants, so equal apportionment among first, third, fifth, and sixth defendants is just; newly joined defendants must contribute equally from this point, with reimbursement to those who paid previously.

Citation
[2025] NIMaster 11
Parties
Plaintiff: Imelda McLaughlin; First Defendant: Italian Coffee Holdings Limited t/a Caffe Nero; Second Defendant: One to One Signs Solutions Limited (in liquidation); Third Defendant: Radiant Blinds Limited; Fourth Defendant: Aegeas Insurance Limited as insurers of One to One Signs Limited (in liquidation); Fifth Defendant: Spicer Insulations Limited; Sixth Defendant: Jess Blinds and Shutters Limited
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
26 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Interim Payment in Personal Injury Action / Second Interim Payment Application, Pre Trial
Outcome
Application granted against first, third, fifth, and sixth defendants; equal apportionment ordered.
Legal Topics
Interim Payments, Catastrophic Injury, Apportionment of Liability, Costs
Personal Injury Civil Procedure Interim Payments Catastrophic Injury Apportionment of Liability Costs

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Imelda McLaughlin

Plaintiff

Italian Coffee Holdings Limited t/a Caffe Nero

First Defendant

One to One Signs Solutions Limited (in liquidation)

Second Defendant

Radiant Blinds Limited

Third Defendant

Aegeas Insurance Limited as insurers of One to One Signs Limited (in liquidation)

Fourth Defendant

Spicer Insulations Limited

Fifth Defendant

Jess Blinds and Shutters Limited

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Interim Payment in Personal Injury Action / Second Interim Payment Application, Pre Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a further interim payment
  2. 2 How interim payments should be apportioned among defendants
  3. 3 Whether newly joined defendants should contribute to previous interim payments

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff is entitled to a further interim payment due to urgent need; court cannot determine ultimate liability among defendants, so equal apportionment among first, third, fifth, and sixth defendants is just; newly joined defendants must contribute equally from this point, with reimbursement to those who paid previously.

Court Disposition

Application granted against first, third, fifth, and sixth defendants; equal apportionment ordered.

Orders

  • Total interim payments of £1,668,002.52 to be split equally among four defendants (£417,000.63 each)
  • Fifth and sixth defendants to reimburse first and third defendants for prior payments (£63,374.69 each to first and third defendants)