IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No.

MA22HY293
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
MANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRY

Between
MR JONATHAN REESE
Claimant
AND

EXPRESS DELIVERY LIMITED

Defendant
_______________________________
SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF
OF THE CLAIMANT
_________________________________

Introduction
1. The Claimant (‘C’) seeks an interim payment in the sum of £40,000 pursuant to CPR r25.7

Pre-reading
2. The court is likely to require 90 minutes to read the documentation.

a. Particulars of Claim

b. Neurological reports of Dr Azad dated 6 July 2020 and 19 October 2021

c. Neurological Report of Dr Preston dated 9 November 2021

d. Orthopaedic Report of Mr Elliott dated 19 February 2022

e. Witness statement of C dated 3 August 2021 (‘WS/C’);

f. . Witness statement of Adam Bukowski dated 6 November 2021 (‘WS/AB’);

g. Witness statement of Daniel Gibson dated 5 October 2021 (‘WS/DG’);

h. Witness statement of Charlotte Scriven dated 6 November 2021 (‘WS/CS’);

 i. Schott Kem Ltd v Bentley

Factual Background

3. On 1 March 2019 at about 11.45 am the C was using a pedestrian crossing to cross a road at
a junction between Ravenswood Road and the A56/Chester Road in Old Trafford,
Manchester when he was struck by a Ford Transit van driven by Daniel Gibson who was an
employee and/or agent of the D.

4. C has no recollection of the collision. The last thing C recalls is that he had gone for a run
wearing yellow sleeve top and a headphone listening to music.

5. While C sought to cross A56, D was approaching from C’s right. D was in the right hand lane
of the two initially. However, upon seeing a stationary vehicle in that lane indicating to turn
right and with the traffic lights ahead of the D on green, D shifted into the left lane.

6. C was almost halfway over the pedestrian crossing when D first noticed him. When C
observed the van, he attempted to return to the side of the road where he had begun
walking.

7. Therefore, this is when D’s van collided with C. As a result, C suffered significant injuries and
has suffered loss.

The test at CPR r25.7

8. CPR r.25.7 provides:

9. (1) The court may only make an order for an interim payment where …

c. it is satisfied that, if the claim went to trial, the claimant would obtain judgment for
a substantial amount of money (other than costs) against the defendant from whom he is
seeking an order for an interim payment whether or not that defendant is the only
defendant or one of a number of defendants to the claim …

4) The court must not order an interim payment of more than a reasonable proportion
of the likely amount of the final judgment.

5) The court must take into account –

a Contributory negligence
10. The application should be considered by the court in two stages (Schott Kem Ltd v Bentley
[1991] 1 Q.B. 61; [1990] 3 All E.R. 850, CA). The court must first be satisfied that, if the action
proceeds to trial, the claimant will obtain judgment for a substantial sum, and, if so, the
court should then consider whether, in its discretion, it should order an interim payment.
C would obtain judgement
D failed to observe the presence of C
11. C submits that D failed to observe his presence

a. A reasonably competent driver would have seen C from some distance as C was
dressed in a bright yellow long-sleeved running top (WS/AB, para 6) that made
him stand out.

b. D noticed C while "travelling through the lights" (WS/DG, para 7). It is submitted
that C was present to be seen before D went through the traffic lights, and that
if he had kept an adequate lookout, he would have seen him

D’s failed to reduce speed

12. C submits that D failed to reduce speed

a. As D was running late for his next delivery (WS/AB, PARA 9) he was accelerating
(WS/AB, para 7). If he had been driving at a reasonable pace, he would have had
more time to notice and react to the presence of C.

b. If D observed C at the moment he claims (WS/DG, para 7), he should have reduced
his speed. It is submitted that a timely decrease in speed would have prevented this
accident.

D failed to give adequate indication of its approach

13. C submits that D failed to provide an appropriate indication of his impending approach to
the junction.

a. D in his statement does not say that he indicated left to how his intention to changes
lanes. According to Paragraph 103 of the Highway Code advises drivers to "give clear
signals in plenty of time" to "advise other road users before changing course or
direction’’

b. If D had indicated left, C probably would have seen it. Therefore., it is submitted that a
reasonably competent driver would have given a warning of his presence at the earliest
opportunity.

14. It is submitted that C has reasonable prospects of demonstrating that D was negligent
therefore, C would obtain judgment if the matter went to trial.

For a Substantial Amount of Money

15. General damages and non-loss of earnings, subject to liability, in the sum of £48,284.80.
 16. C claims a total sum of £51,097.15 for past and £523,214.06 for future loss of earnings and
residual earning capacity based on a reduction of working days to 3 days a week until
retirement aged 65

17. On the best-case scenario based on acceptance of all of C's evidence the claim is worth in
the region of £622,596.01

18. D asserts, based on Dr Preston's report, that C ought to have increased to working 4 days per
week at 18-24 months post-accident and to 5 days at 24-30 months post-accident and
accordingly refutes any ongoing loss.

19. Therefore, subject to liability, on the Ds best-case scenario there is a period of 18 months
where the D agrees that C working 3 days a week was reasonable; this results in £30,668.03
loss of earnings. There is a further £3,830.46 which is undisputed for a reduction by one
working day per week for the following 6 months (although C claims a greater reduction as
he states he could not cope with 4 days a week). This gives a total of £34,498.49  not in
dispute for loss of earnings

20. Therefore, on both parties’ evidence C will obtain judgment it would be for at least
£82,783.29. It is submitted that even on D’s evidence, C will receive a substantial amount of
money.

Conclusion

21. It is submitted that C has satisfied the first stage of the test under r.25.7(1)(c) that , if the
action proceeds to trial, the C would obtain judgment for a substantial sum.

Reasonable Proportion of the Likely Final Judgement

22. The second aspect of the test requires the Court to determine what is a reasonable
proportion of the likely final judgement. There is no judicial guidance on a “reasonable
proportion”; the matter is for the Court’s discretion.

23. With C expecting to recover a figure ranging from £82,783.29 to £622,596.01, it is submitted
that C's request for an interim payment of £40,000 is justifiable, reasonable, and
proportionate as the amount is less than 50% of the sum based on D’s evidence

The court must take into account contributory negligence.

24. C might be found to have contributed to the damage he suffered, because he attempted to
cross at a red pedestrian signal and paid insufficient attention (whether because of his
music, or his mobile phone, or some other reason).

25. It is unlikely that C will be found to have contributed more than 50% to the cause of the
damage. Even if a full 50% reduction was from the D’s estimation, judgement would be for
£41,391.65. Therefore, C request for £40,000 seems reasonable.

Conclusion
26. For the reasons set out above, C respectfully requests the Court to order an interim payment
of £40,000
Nafisa Akhter