Interim payment on account

Blackmore v Cummings and others CA Civ Div 10 June 2009

There is no legal presumption that a party is entitled to realise the benefit of a costs order in his favour by having an interim payment on account. A costs order is simply one factor to be taken into account by a judge in the exercise of his wide discretion under the CPR 44.3. The idea that a party should not be kept from money to which he had become entitled by virtue of a costs order is not a rule that has the status of a presumption. There was no dispute that once the costs were assessed the paying party would be able to meet any liability, the receiving party, who was not in any financial difficulty, had delayed commencing the costs proceedings by some 29 months. The application was refused.