Legal Advice on Interim Payments in Construction Cases
Interim Payments
Interim payments are a vital procedural mechanism in Northern Ireland civil litigation that enable a claimant to receive funds on account of final damages before trial. While the term “interim payments” is also used in construction to describe stage payments under a building contract, in this advisory we address interim payments in the litigation context under the Rules of the Court of Judicature (Northern Ireland) 1980. Properly deployed, an interim payment application can secure essential funding for care, accommodation, and other immediate needs, protect the claimant’s welfare, and promote fairness where liability is unlikely to be seriously in dispute or where an insured defendant’s responsibility is clear.
What is an interim payment?
An interim payment in litigation is a court-ordered payment on account of damages, made before final judgment. It is designed to relieve the claimant from bearing the full financial burden of losses pending trial and to maintain reasonable financial stability in the conduct of the case. In practice, interim payments are commonly sought to meet urgent and demonstrable needs such as adapted accommodation, care and case management, mobility aids, therapy, and temporary housing solutions, together with necessary legal outlay directly related to the claim.
Factual background
We act for the plaintiff who seeks an interim payment of £580,502.52 to address immediate, objectively verified needs. The heads of claim for the interim sum comprise adaptations to the plaintiff’s new property to ensure safe occupation, reasonable care costs up to the anticipated trial date, the cost of a suitable rental property pending completion of adaptations, and related legal outlay. The claim arises from an incident on 5 April 2023 at the first defendant’s premises when a sign and canopy allegedly fell and struck our client, causing catastrophic injury, consequential loss, and damage.
Responsibility for the design, supply, and installation of the external sign and awning is distributed across multiple defendants. The first defendant is the occupier. The second defendant designed and installed the sign and engaged the fifth defendant to supply and fit the metal sign. The third defendant supplied the exterior awning and engaged the sixth defendant to fit it. The fourth defendant is the second defendant’s insurer. The distribution of roles and potential liabilities among these parties is material to how any interim payment should be apportioned pending trial, without prejudicing ultimate findings of liability and contribution.
Legal framework and principles
The court’s jurisdiction to order interim payments is contained in Order 29, rules 12, 13 and 19 of the Rules of the Court of Judicature (Northern Ireland) 1980.
Rule 12 governs applications for interim payment. A plaintiff may apply after service of the writ and expiry of the time for appearance. The application must be supported by evidence addressing, among other matters, the basis upon which the defendant would be liable to pay a substantial sum at trial and the immediate need for funds.
Rule 13 empowers the court to make an interim payment order in respect of damages where the Rule 12 conditions are met, having regard to what is “reasonable” on the evidence and ensuring the payment is on account rather than a final determination.
Rule 19 addresses adjustment upon final judgment or discontinuance. The court retains a continuing supervisory power to vary or adjust interim payments at any stage, to ensure that the overall outcome is just once liability and quantum are finally determined, including the making of consequential orders for interest and costs.
In practical terms, the plaintiff must demonstrate a real, immediate, and reasonably necessary need for funds; a sound evidential basis that one or more defendants will be liable in a substantial measure at trial; and that the quantum sought is properly supported by itemised evidence, expert opinion where needed, and reasonable projections to the point of trial.
Parties’ submissions and apportionment issues
On the evidence presented, the principal dispute surrounding the application concerns apportionment among multiple defendants and the treatment of earlier voluntary or ordered interim payments. The defendants occupy different positions:
The second defendant is said not to be insured for indemnity under the policy and was not a party to this application, with the plaintiff not seeking relief against that defendant on this occasion. There was, in addition, said to be an evidential shortfall to ground an order directly against the second defendant at this stage.
The fifth defendant is insured but raised concerns at the paucity of affidavit evidence advanced on behalf of certain other defendants, submitting that any order must give proper credit for payments already made and avoid overburdening one party where responsibility is shared.
The sixth defendant stated that it had no input into prior interim arrangements and would accept, from this point forward, an equal four-way division of further interim payments but would not accept retrospective responsibility for previous payments.
From the plaintiff’s perspective, the court’s task is to secure the claimant’s immediate needs while preserving fairness between defendants through interim apportionment that can later be adjusted to reflect ultimate liability and contribution.
Decision and reasoning
The court determined that the just approach was to place the active defendants on an equal footing by totalling all interim sums and directing equal contributions from each. The court expressly relied on its wide discretion under Order 29 rule 19 to vary prior interim payment orders at any stage of the proceedings to achieve a just interim allocation. Recognising both the urgency and necessity of our client’s needs for accommodation, care, and living arrangements, the court concluded that an order against four defendants, with equal contributions, was appropriate. It further emphasised that these interim arrangements do not prejudice the final allocation of liability; after trial, appropriate adjustments may be made, including for interest on interim sums and costs orders that reflect the eventual outcome.
Practical implications for claimants and defendants
For claimants, this outcome underscores the value of a well-evidenced interim payment application: timely, detailed material on immediate needs, causation, and quantum will support the court’s finding of reasonable necessity and help secure funding without delay. Careful itemisation of accommodation works, therapy and care regimes, bridging rental costs, and related professional fees is essential.
For defendants and their insurers, the decision illustrates the court’s readiness to use the flexibility of Order 29 rule 19 to impose an equitable interim allocation in multi-defendant cases, even where insurance positions, subcontracting chains, and evidential asymmetries complicate the picture. Defendants should therefore put forward clear affidavit evidence on relative responsibility, any prior payments, and insurance arrangements at the interim stage if they seek to influence apportionment. They should also reserve their positions on contribution and indemnity rights pending determination of liability and quantum at trial.
Key takeaways for advising on interim payments
The court will prioritise the claimant’s immediate, evidenced needs while maintaining procedural fairness through interim apportionment and preserving the ability to adjust later. Equal interim contributions among active defendants can be ordered as a pragmatic holding position where liability is plausible across multiple parties and the evidential record is evolving. Robust evidential preparation remains decisive: for claimants, to demonstrate necessity and reasonable quantum; for defendants, to shape interim apportionment and ensure appropriate credits and protections are embedded, with final adjustments to follow at judgment.