Kirsty Williams-Henry v Associated British Ports Holdings Ltd
[2024] EWHC 806 (KB)
Qaisar Mehmood v Harry Mayor
8 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1057 (KB)
High Court
A person injured in a car accident sued the other driver. The driver admitted fault but claimed the injured person was exaggerating their injuries and being dishonest. Because of this dishonesty claim, a judge refused to give the injured person an advance payment to help with medical care, saying the dishonesty issue needed to be decided at a full trial.
Key Facts
- •Claim for damages for personal injury caused by a road traffic accident.
- •Claimant suffered significant brain injury and other injuries.
- •Claimant lacks capacity (disputed).
- •Defendant admits primary liability but pleads fundamental dishonesty under section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.
- •Claimant applied for retrospective approval of a £10,000 interim payment and a further £75,000 interim payment.
- •Surveillance evidence shows claimant working at his restaurant, contradicting his claims of incapacity.
- •Conflicting expert medical evidence regarding the extent of the claimant's injuries and rehabilitation needs.
Legal Principles
Approach to interim payment applications under CPR 25.7.
Cobham Hire Services v Eeles [2009] EWCA Civ 204
Requirement for admission of liability before an interim payment can be ordered (CPR 25.7(1)(a)).
CPR 25.7(1)(a)
Fundamental dishonesty under section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.
Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, s.57
Test for fundamental dishonesty: dishonesty substantially affecting the presentation of the case (LOCOG v Sinfield [2018] EWHC 51 (QB)).
LOCOG v Sinfield [2018] EWHC 51 (QB)
Interim payment should be a reasonable proportion of the likely final judgment (CPR 25.7(4)).
CPR 25.7(4)
Court's power to order an interim payment if claimant would obtain judgment for a substantial amount at trial (CPR 25.7(1)(c)).
CPR 25.7(1)(c)
Court's ability to weigh up relative prejudice to each party in interim payment applications with conflicting evidence (Salwin v Shahed [2022] EWHC 1440 (QB)).
Salwin v Shahed [2022] EWHC 1440 (QB)
Outcomes
Claimant's application for interim payments dismissed.
Defendant's plea of fundamental dishonesty denies liability, CPR 25.7(1)(a) not satisfied. The issue of fundamental dishonesty can only be resolved at trial.
Previous interim payment of £10,000 not approved.
This will be dealt with at trial.