It’s been a quiet quarter for quantum cases but in the Northern Irish case of Gilliland v McManus 30 Gillen J gave some helpful guidance to practitioners on periodical payments. Ms Gilliland suffered devastating neurocognitive impairments as a result of a road traffic accident in which she had failed to wear a seatbelt and where it was likely 20-25% contributory negligence would be found against her. The bulk of any periodical payments order would be future care. Gillen J agreed with the claimant that a lump sum award should be made so that her financial advisors could manage the lump sum to try to avoid a later shortfall in the claimant’s annual care needs. Although dealing with the Northern Ireland Rules of procedure rather than CPR, Part 41 section II, Gillen J made clear that practitioners should ensure a statement is prepared setting out what form of order (lump sum/ppo) is more appropriate and providing relevant particulars of the circumstances relied upon in support of that statement. In most cases where consideration needs to be given to the management and investment of any order Gillen J thought that it would be necessary for the pleader to have financial or actuarial advice to provide those particulars and recommended that advice be obtained early on in the proceedings.
It is rare to see a quantum-only appeal in the Court of Appeal, ever more so when the disputed item is only £513.50, but that was the value of the dispute which troubled Lord Justice McFarlane and Sir Stephen Sedley in Tutas v East London Bus & Coach Company 31. The defendant challenged a physiotherapy claim on the basis that the claimant was not legally obliged to pay for treatment notwithstanding invoices disclosed in support of the claim; but the challenge was brought late in an updated counterschedule on the eve of trial. When questioned, the claimant gave confused evidence on the arrangements for payment but made it clear he did not expect to pay for the treatment. A late document was then produced (after trial and on the morning of judgment) which demonstrated the treatment had been arranged through the claimant’s