The Claimant suffered very significant injuries at 8 months old which have left her with life long cognitive and physical impairments. The Defendant admitted liability, including causation, at an early stage.
Proceedings have been issued and, thus far, there has been a great deal of co - operation between the parties. Indeed, this even extended to agreement in respect of (1) a substantial interim payment and (2) a costs order whereby the Defendant would pay the Claimant's costs to date in an agreed amount.
Very recently the parties attended court for directions and for an order setting out the terms of the aforementioned interim payements.
The night before the hearing it was quite clear both from discussions between the fee earners and from the face of the documents that agreement had been reached as to the date on which the interim payments would be made. In fact the claimant's solicitors had compromised on the amount of the costs on the understanding that the payment would be received before the end of their financial year.
At court however, a different fee earner was in attendance from the Defendant's solicitors and wanted an extra week to make the payments on the basis that the Easter bankholidays would cause difficulties with raising a cheque by the originally agreed date. The extra week took the deadline outside the Claimant's solicitor's financial year.
The District Judge gave the Defendant the additional week.
Was this the right decision?
For what its worth, I do not think so. It makes a bit of a mockery of the consensus that had been reached by the solicitors. Also (and this is not necessarily a concern for the court), it does not bode well for future relations between the parties....