PI Brief Update

Surveillance evidence stymies Claimant’s interim payment hopes - Amy Lanham Coles, Temple Garden Chambers

16/05/24. Mehmood v Mayor [2024] EWHC 1057 (KB)

This claim for personal injury arose out of a road traffic accident in which the Claimant alleged to have suffered a brain injury, amongst other injuries. This decision focused solely on the Claimant’s application for retrospective approval of an interim payment of £10,000 and for a further interim payment in the sum of £75,000.

At an early stage primary breach of duty had been admitted but the Defendant alleged contributory negligence and disputed causation and quantum. Thereafter, the Defendant obtained surveillance evidence that precipitated allegations of fundamental dishonesty. The surveillance footage showed the Claimant working in his restaurant post-accident. Fundamental dishonesty was accordingly pleaded in an Amended Defence, in which the Claimant’s alleged lack of capacity was also disputed.

Issues

The Claimant sought interim payments on the basis that the two stage test set out in Cobham Hire Services v Eeles [2009] EWCA Civ 204 was met.

The Defendant raised a preliminary issue – namely that the Claimant was not entitled to any interim payment by virtue of the precondition set out at CPR r 25.7(1)(a). This was because in light of the allegation of fundamental dishonesty, the Defendant had not “admitted liability to pay damages or some other sum of money to the Claimant”. The Defendant also relied upon r 25.7(4) to similar effect, because this provision constrains the court insofar as it cannot award payments “of more than...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/alice-photo

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...