AC (A Minor) v St Georges Healthcare NHS Trust

On an interim-payment application in a serious clinical-negligence claim, the court must make a conservative assessment of the likely capital judgment and award no more than a reasonable proportion of it. The assessment must preserve the trial judge’s freedom to decide whether future losses should be met by a periodical payments order. Accommodation costs may ordinarily be included where a capital award is likely, and a high proportion may be awarded where the assessment is sufficiently reliable. Under the second stage of the Eeles approach, future loss may be capitalised only where there is a high degree of confidence that the trial judge will make a capital award and there is a real need for payment before trial. The risk of influencing the trial judge is relevant but not conclusive.

The claimant, a seven-year-old child with severe lifelong disabilities caused by admitted clinical negligence at birth, applied for an interim payment of £1,203,300 under CPR 25.7(4). Judgment on liability had already been entered, but the claim had not yet been quantified and trial was expected in about two and a half years.

The payment was sought principally to enable the claimant and his family to move from unsuitable accommodation and to fund care and psychological support before trial. The central issues were the appropriate valuation of the likely final judgment, whether accommodation should be valued on the basis of purchase or rent, and whether the requested sum could be justified under the two-stage approach in Eeles v Cobham Hire Services Ltd.

1. Interim payment awarded. The application was allowed in the sum of £1,203,300.
2. Under the first stage of Eeles, the court assessed general damages, past losses, projected losses to trial, accommodation costs and related expenses on a conservative basis. The likely capital judgment was £1,337,000. A proportion of 90% was reasonable.
3. The claimant’s accommodation claim was properly valued on the basis of purchasing a suitable family home using the Roberts v Johnstone approach. The evidence established that the existing home was unsuitable, that the family required re-housing as a unit, and that no reasonably suitable rental property had been identified. Rental would also expose the family to insecurity of tenure and did not provide a satisfactory valuation model.
4. The court was not required at the interim stage to determine whether the proposed property was ultimately reasonable or how the deputy should spend the money. The trial judge remained free to challenge the figures and any purchase by expert evidence and to make different findings at trial.
5. The possibility that the payment might influence the accommodation issue or create an unlevel playing field was a relevant factor, but not conclusive. The claimant’s entitlement to damages and immediate need for suitable accommodation outweighed that risk.
6. Alternatively, the payment would have been justified under the second stage of Eeles. The court had a high degree of confidence that any modest shortfall could be met by capitalising another future-loss head, and there was a real need for payment well before trial.