Distinction Skeleton Argument for Interim Payment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. MA22HY293
KING’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.This is the Claimant’s (“C”) application for an interim payment in the sum of £40,000 that
the Defendant (“D”) pay a reasonable proportion of the damages likely to be recovered at
trial, arising from a road traffic accident in which C sustained serious brain and orthopaedic
injuries.



Pre-reading

2.The Court is likely to require 2 hours to read the following:

a. Particulars of Claim (dated 19 September 2025)
b.Defence (dated 14 October 2025)
b. Witness Statement of Jonathan Reese (dated 4 August 2025) (“WS/JR”);
c. Witness Statement of Adam Bukowski (dated 6 November 2025) (“WS/AB”);
d. Witness Statement of Charlotte Scriven (dated 6 November 2025) (“WS/CS”);
e. Witness Statement of Daniel Gibson (dated 7 October 2025) (“WS/DG”);
f. Witness Statement of Janelle Daniels (dated 6 January 2026) (“WS/JD”);
g. Neurology report of Dr Ahmad Azad (10 April 2026) (“Azad 2”);
h. Neurology report of Dr Nicola Preston (10 April 2026) (“Preston”);
i. Joint Orthopaedic report of Mr Rupert Elliott (10 April 2026) (“Elliott”);
j. Letter of Response from Leeds Mutual Insurance (dated 5 October 2025) – confirming
insurance coverage and denial of liability.
k. Moore v Assignment Courier Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 638 (authority for the principle that interim
payments mitigate hardship pending trial) (WB 2025, Vol 2, para 15–99);
l. Eeles v Cobham Hire Services Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 204 (authority on the “reasonable
proportion” test for interim payments);

, Factual Background

3. On 1 March 2023, the Claimant (“C”) was struck by a Ford Transit delivery van driven by
Daniel Gibson, an employee of the Defendant (“D”).

4. The collision occurred on the A56 Chester Road near the Tesco Supermarket, Old
Trafford. Independent eyewitness Adam Bukowski confirms that C was visible—wearing a
bright yellow running top—and began crossing lawfully when the van suddenly accelerated
and struck him.

5.C suffered serious injuries including:

i. Traumatic brain injury with intracranial bleed and permanent cognitive impairment
ii. Fractures to ribs, clavicle, ulna, and radius; and
iii. Continuing neurological symptoms of fatigue, poor concentration, and emotional
dysregulation).

6. The basic mechanism of the accident is not in dispute. Mr Gibson admits he moved from
the right-hand lane into the left-hand lane to pass stationary traffic (WS/DG, para 6).
Independent driver Janelle Daniels corroborates that she saw the van pull out from behind
traffic and then perform an emergency stop to avoid hitting a pedestrian.

7. Although D denies liability in the Defence (paras 2–6), the independent witness evidence
of Bukowski and Daniels strongly supports C’s version—that the van accelerated through a
green light despite C being visible in the carriageway.

8.C’s employment and financial loss are addressed by Charlotte Scriven, his managing
partner at Scriven & Crutes LLP

i.Before the accident, C worked five days per week earning £3,611.62 net/month

ii.After phased return, C works three days per week, earning £2,334.80 net/month

iii.Attempts to increase to four days failed due to fatigue and cognitive limits

9.Medical consensus:

i.Dr Azad (concludes that C sustained permanent brain damage and will not return to full-
time work

ii.Dr Preston accepts residual impairment but believes C could have returned to full-time
work within 24–30 months

iii.Mr Elliott (joint expert) supports that orthopaedic injuries healed but confirms ongoing mild
restriction and pain




10.Agreed and undisputed damages (subject to liability):

i.General damages and non-loss past losses: £48,284.80.