Description
Application for interim payment pursuant to CPR Part. 25.7(1). The defendants resisted the application on the ground that the claimants' title to sue was too incoherent to justify an interim payment and submitted that the right measure of loss was diminution of value. Held,
inter alia: To award interim payment pursuant to CPR Part 25.7(1) the court must be satisfied that, on the material before it and on a balance of probabilities, the claim would succeed and as a result the claimant would obtain a substantial amount of money (
FII Group Litigation v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2012] EWCA Civ 57 and
Chiron Corporation v Murex Diagnostics Limited [1996] F.S.R. 578 followed). It would be wrong in principle if an otherwise clear entitlement to an interim payment was frustrated because of an absence of clarity as to which claimant entity might be the ultimate beneficiary, in circumstances where there is no evidence that repayment, if necessary, might not be made. In the present case, the irreducible minimum recoverable (excluding any question of costs), even on the defendant's analysis of quantum, would be £4 million.
