Note: Andrew Harkin against Annette McNeil (National Personal Injury Court) [2025] SCEDIN 84 (06 November 2025)
There is no sufficient reason to depart from the ordinary process of taxation and enforcement of expenses, as the delay in taxation is not unique to this case, the pursuer himself is not prejudiced, and no case-specific factors justify an interim award. The court's discretion is not engaged on the facts presented.
- Citation
- [2025] SCEDIN 84
- Parties
- Pursuer: Andrew Harkin; Defender: Annette McNeil
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 06 November 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Personal Injury / Post Settlement, Motion for Interim Payment of Expenses
- Outcome
- Motion refused
- Legal Topics
- Interim Payment of Expenses, Taxation of Expenses, Sheriff Court Discretion, Personal Injury Litigation Funding
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Andrew Harkin
Pursuer
Annette McNeil
Defender
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Post Settlement, Motion for Interim Payment of Expenses
Legal Issues
- 1 Is the pursuer entitled to an interim payment of expenses prior to taxation in the Sheriff Court?
- 2 Does delay in taxation constitute sufficient reason for an interim award of expenses?
Ratio Decidendi
There is no sufficient reason to depart from the ordinary process of taxation and enforcement of expenses, as the delay in taxation is not unique to this case, the pursuer himself is not prejudiced, and no case-specific factors justify an interim award. The court's discretion is not engaged on the facts presented.
Court Disposition
Motion refused
Orders
- Pursuer's motion for interim payment of £30,000 refused
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