Carling v. WP Bruce Ltd [2006] ScotCS CSOH_7 (20 January 2006)
Rule 43.11 permits interim payment motions after proof has commenced if defences have been lodged and liability is admitted; however, the court must be able to form a view on likely damages, which was not possible here due to unresolved evidential issues. Only agreed sums less voluntary payments can be ordered as interim payment.
- Citation
- [2006] ScotCS CSOH_7
- Parties
- Pursuer: Graeme Carling; Defender: W P Bruce Limited
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 20 January 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Personal Injury Damages Claim / Interim Payment Application During Part Heard Proof
- Outcome
- Interim payment motion granted in part
- Legal Topics
- Interim Payment of Damages, Admissibility of Motions Post Proof Commencement, Assessment of Damages
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Graeme Carling
Pursuer
W P Bruce Limited
Defender
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Damages Claim / Interim Payment Application During Part Heard Proof
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a motion for interim payment is competent after proof has commenced
- 2 What is a reasonable proportion of damages for interim payment
Ratio Decidendi
Rule 43.11 permits interim payment motions after proof has commenced if defences have been lodged and liability is admitted; however, the court must be able to form a view on likely damages, which was not possible here due to unresolved evidential issues. Only agreed sums less voluntary payments can be ordered as interim payment.
Court Disposition
Interim payment motion granted in part
Orders
- Defenders to make interim payment of £64,500 to pursuer
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment