MR PIOTR SALWIN v MR HIATHEM SHAHED

Under CPR 25.7, an interim payment must not exceed a reasonable proportion of the likely final judgment. In serious personal injury claims, the Eeles two-stage approach applies. The court first makes a cautious assessment of the likely capital award, excluding future losses likely to be dealt with by periodical payments unless a larger capital sum can be confidently predicted and a real present need is established.

Losses expected to accrue before trial may be included where the circumstances justify that approach, but the court must manage the risks of overpayment and of restricting the trial judge’s freedom to make an appropriate periodical payments order. A disagreement about the claimant’s care needs may justify increased caution, but it does not automatically prevent an interim payment. The court ordered a further payment of £170,000.

The claimant suffered catastrophic injuries, including a traumatic brain injury, after being struck by the defendant’s car. Liability had been settled on the basis of 80% recovery. Voluntary interim payments totalling £422,000 had already been made.

The claimant sought a further interim payment to fund rehabilitation, care, therapy and related expenses. The defendant argued that the payments already made exceeded a reasonable proportion of the likely final judgment, relying on a more limited assessment of the claimant’s needs and the cautious approach required by Eeles.

The central issues were how to value past and anticipated pre-trial losses, how to account for conflicting evidence concerning care needs, and whether the level-playing-field principle should prevent or limit an interim payment.

1. Outcome. The application was granted. The maximum further interim payment properly available on the evidence was £170,000, subject to deduction of the relevant sum due to the Compensation Recovery Unit.
2. Applicable approach. The court applied CPR 25.7(4) and the two-stage approach in Eeles v Cobham Hire Services Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 204. The likely final judgment had to be assessed conservatively. Future losses could be included only where the court could confidently predict that the trial judge would award a larger capital sum and there was a real need for the payment.
3. Pre-trial losses. Following the approach in PAL v Davison [2021] EWHC 1108 (QB), losses likely to accrue before trial could be included where that was factually justified. The court had to balance the risk of overpayment and interference with a future periodical payments order against the risk that the claimant would be deprived of necessary rehabilitation funding or forced into repeated applications.
4. Level playing field. The principle considered in Campbell v Mylchreest [1999] PIQR Q17 was a relevant factor, but not an absolute bar. The possibility that excessive care might cause learned dependency justified caution in quantification, yet the possible prejudice to the claimant from inadequate care was at least as significant.
5. Valuation. The court valued past losses cautiously at £534,785, applied the 80% liability discount and treated 90% as a reasonable proportion. It valued anticipated losses over the following year at £387,456 before the liability discount and applied a two-thirds allowance because of the greater uncertainty. The resulting maximum total interim payment was £591,688, leaving £169,688, rounded to £170,000, after crediting payments already made.
6. The valuation was based on incomplete evidence and assumptions and was not binding on any future application. A later application would ordinarily require independent expert evidence on the appropriate level of support.