R1X2 v Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

When deciding an application for an interim payment in a substantial personal injury claim likely to include a periodical payments order, the court must assess conservatively the likely capital judgment and order no more than a reasonable proportion of it. The assessment excludes future losses which may properly be dealt with by periodical payments. Future losses may be included only where the court has a high degree of confidence that they will be awarded as capital and there is a real and urgent need for payment before trial. The court must preserve the trial judge’s freedom to determine the final form of the award and must avoid creating an uneven playing field. The assessment remains evidence-based; an unsupported broad-brush discount is inappropriate.

The claimant, who sustained severe cerebral palsy following a birth injury, sought a further interim payment of £2.75 million. Liability had been compromised at 80% of full damages, and the quantum trial was listed for June 2025.

The application was principally motivated by the urgent need to purchase and adapt suitable accommodation before the claimant’s existing tenancy ended. The court considered the amount available under the first stage of the Eeles approach, and whether accommodation and related future losses could also be included under the second stage.

1. Applicable framework. The court applied the two-stage approach in R v Eeles and Cobham Hire Services Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 204. Under CPR 25.7(4), the interim payment could not exceed a reasonable proportion of the likely capital judgment. That judgment had to be assessed conservatively, excluding future losses which the trial judge might award by periodical payments.
2. Stage 1. The court assessed the recoverable capital heads, including general damages, past losses, interest and accommodation costs, and accepted a figure of approximately £2,273,705. After crediting £1.1 million already paid, £1.15 million remained available. A proposed one-third reduction based on the vicissitudes of trial was rejected because it was neither evidenced nor principled.
3. Stage 2. Future loss could be included only where there was a high degree of confidence that the trial judge would award it as capital and a real need for payment before trial. The claimant established both requirements for the balance needed to secure the identified property and continue the care regime. The urgency arose from the impending termination of the existing tenancy, the scarcity of suitable properties and the likely disruption and wasted costs of an interim move.
4. The court declined to include a further £355,000 for adaptation works. The trial was imminent and building works were unlikely to begin before it. The court also emphasised that it was not approving the purchase of a particular property; it was recognising that expenditure of approximately the awarded sum was reasonably necessary.
5. Order. A further interim payment of £2.195 million was ordered.

not stated in the judgment.