Dr Daniel Vaz de Souza & Anor v Dr Rekha Shrestha

Pre-claim interim relief should be granted only where the matter is urgent or where granting relief before issue is otherwise desirable in the interests of justice. The originating process founds the jurisdiction to grant interim relief.

For interim mandatory relief, the court must assess the practical adequacy of damages and the balance of convenience. It should take the course likely to cause the least irremediable prejudice to both parties. In assessing the status quo, the court may consider the parties’ established pre-dispute practice. Immediate financial need may outweigh a respondent’s exposure to contingent future liabilities, particularly where the underlying entitlement is seriously arguable and the amount is not seriously challenged.

The claimants, dentists operating under an expense-sharing agreement with the defendant, applied for interim mandatory relief requiring payment of £103,235.30 from a joint practice bank account. They also sought changes to the account mandate.

The claimants said the sum represented remuneration due for dental activity undertaken between August 2024 and February 2025. The defendant relied on anticipated liabilities to the NHS arising from possible claw-back and sought to preserve the account. The central issues were whether pre-claim interim relief was procedurally available, whether there were serious issues to be tried, and where the balance of justice lay.

1. Pre-claim relief. The court criticised the practice of issuing a pre-application injunction without first issuing the claim where there was ample time to do so. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, CPR 25.2 (2), interim relief before commencement is available only where the matter is urgent or where it is otherwise desirable in the interests of justice. The issue of the originating process founds the jurisdiction.
2. Interim mandatory injunction. There were serious issues to be tried as to whether the monies in the joint account were beneficially owned by the claimants under clause 6.1 of the expense-sharing agreement. Although damages were adequate in principle for a monetary claim, the court considered the practical consequences. Delay could prevent the claimants meeting living and business expenses, while the defendant’s principal concern was a contingent future NHS claw-back.
3. Balance of justice. The court applied the principle that it should take the course likely to cause the least irremediable prejudice to both parties. The relevant status quo was the established practice of making monthly payments to the claimants from the account. ESL Fuels Limited v Fletcher [2013] EWHC 3726 (Ch) was applied in assessing that status quo. The balance favoured release of the monies, particularly because the claimants’ entitlement was not seriously challenged and their need was immediate.
4. The court ordered payment of £103,235.30 to the claimants. It refused the requested changes to the bank mandate, leaving further relief to an application for summary judgment or to trial.

First-instance decision. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.