Spillman v Bradfield Riding Centre

When deciding an application for an interim payment under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 25.7(4), the court must identify the likely amount of the final judgment, determine a reasonable proportion of that amount, and then consider any other material matters relevant to the discretion.

No fixed percentage governs what is reasonable. The assessment is fact-sensitive and must protect the defendant against overpayment while recognising matters such as losses already incurred, the period before trial, and safeguards controlling expenditure. The court may exercise the appellate court’s power directly where the first-instance decision did not apply the rule’s required stages.

The claimant suffered a serious head injury after being kicked by a horse at the defendant’s riding school. Liability had been admitted at 70 per cent. The claimant applied for a further interim payment of £400,000 under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 25.7.

Master Leslie ordered a further £15,000, after earlier interim payments. The claimant appealed with permission from Butterfield J. The central issue was how the court should determine the likely final judgment, the reasonable proportion payable on an interim basis, and the exercise of its residual discretion under rule 25.7(4).

1. Appeal allowed. The court ordered a further interim payment of £56,500.
2. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 25.7(4), the court must proceed in three stages: identify the likely amount of the final judgment; determine what proportion of that amount is reasonable; and consider any other material matters relevant to whether a payment should be ordered and, if so, its amount.
3. The likely amount is necessarily a less than scientific assessment where the parties’ valuations differ widely. The court adopted £260,000 as a figure safely likely to be recovered on a 100 per cent basis, producing £182,000 after applying the admitted 70 per cent liability.
4. There is no fixed rule of law or practice prescribing a reasonable proportion. The relevant assessment must protect the defendant against over-compensation. Here, the time already elapsed and the time before trial, the substantial element of losses already incurred, the exclusion of much future uncertainty from the adopted figure, and Court of Protection control over payments justified a proportion of 75 per cent.
5. The resulting figure was £136,500, less £80,000 already paid, leaving £56,500. Questions about the proposed purpose of the payment and maintaining a level playing field did not alter the calculation or justify refusing the payment.

• High Court (Queen's Bench Division): appeal from Master Leslie’s order of 8 August 2006, allowed. The claimant had permission to appeal from Butterfield J.
• Master Leslie: ordered a further interim payment of £15,000, in addition to £15,000 ordered on 20 February 2006.