Conditional periodic payments in deputyship cases have been a hot topic recently.

The logic behind them is that where capacity is disputed and the claimant and defendant cannot agree whether a deputy will be needed in the future or not, the Periodical Payments Order could be structured so that the element of those future costs which relates to deputyship is only paid at times when a deputy is in place. This can at times be a significantly contentious issue between the parties.

In AA (By his Mother & Litigation Friend BB) v (1) CC (2) Motor Insurers’ Bureau (2013) the Court considered whether it had power to approve such an Order on behalf of a claimant who lacked capacity.

The Court concluded that although it was not able to order these payments under Part 41 of the Civil Procedure Rules because of the uncertainty of the dates when they would start and end, it could approve a Tomlin Order with an agreed schedule to essentially the same effect.

The Court was satisfied that the proposed agreement was in the claimant’s best interests and therefore approved the Order.  As a side note, because the proposed periodical payments form part of an agreement approved by the Court, they would be exempt from taxation.

If you would like further information about this case, please contact Lynne Bradey here