What percentage is an interim payment? No rule fixes one. For an interim payment of damages, the court must not order more than “a reasonable proportion of the likely amount of the final judgment”, and it must take into account contributory negligence and any relevant set-off or counterclaim (CPR 25.20). For costs, it orders “a reasonable sum on account of costs” unless there is good reason not to (CPR 44.2(8)). In both, the court makes a cautious estimate of what will finally be due and orders part of it. The percentage follows from that estimate; it is not a tariff.

This guide takes the two orders separately: interim payments of damages under CPR Part 25, then payments on account of costs under CPR 44.2(8). For each it sets out the rule, how the courts reach a figure and what they have ordered.

Jump to: interim payments of damages · what the cases ordered · applying · payments on account of costs

Interim payment of damagesPayment on account of costs
The ruleCPR 25.20 to 25.25CPR 44.2(8)
On account ofAny sum, except costs, that the defendant may be held liable to pay (CPR 25.1(1)(l))Costs ordered to be paid subject to detailed assessment
WhenOnly if a condition in CPR 25.23 is metWhenever costs are ordered subject to detailed assessment, unless there is good reason not to
How muchNo more than a reasonable proportion of the likely amount of the final judgment, after contributory negligence and any set-off or counterclaim (CPR 25.20(1) and (2))A reasonable sum
A fixed percentage?NoNo
How it is soughtAn application notice on at least 14 days’ notice, with evidence (CPR 25.21 and 25.22)When the costs order is made; later in the assessment, an interim costs certificate (CPR 47.16)

What percentage is an interim payment of damages?

CPR 25.20(1) sets a ceiling, not a figure: the court must not order an interim payment of more than a reasonable proportion of the likely amount of the final judgment. CPR 25.20(2) adds that it must take into account contributory negligence and any relevant set-off or counterclaim. The courts have declined to supply a figure of their own. In Spillman v Bradfield Riding Centre [2007] EWHC 89 (QB), Langley J said there is “no rule (of law or thumb)” as to what is a reasonable proportion (at [18]).

Instead the court asks two questions, then decides in its discretion whether to order a payment, and for how much (Spillman at [12]; Cobham Hire Services Ltd v Eeles [2009] EWCA Civ 204 at [43], reported as Eeles v Cobham Hire Services Ltd [2010] 1 WLR 409):

  1. What is the likely amount of the final judgment? A conservative estimate of what the claimant is likely to be awarded, after any reduction for contributory negligence and allowing for any set-off or counterclaim. The court has no power to order more than this figure (Eeles at [30]).
  2. What is a reasonable proportion of it? Because the estimate is cautious, the proportion can be high: in the Court of Appeal’s words, it “may well be a high proportion, provided that the assessment has been conservative”. The aim is not to keep the claimant out of money but to avoid any risk of overpayment (Eeles at [43]).

Contributory negligence and set-off

The likely amount of the final judgment is the figure after any reduction for contributory negligence (CPR 25.20(2)). At trial the legal and evidential burden of proving contributory negligence is on the defendant. On an interim payment application the defendant has an evidential burden to put material before the court that raises the issue, and the court applies the test to the evidence it has (Smith v Bailey [2014] EWHC 2569 (QB) at [8]). In that case there was no such material, so the Master was justified in assessing the likely award on full liability (at [8]). Where liability has already been agreed at a percentage, the estimate starts from that percentage, as in Spillman below. Any relevant set-off or counterclaim is taken into account in the same way.

Claims where future losses may be paid periodically

In a serious personal injury or clinical negligence claim, the trial judge may order periodical payments for future losses. The likely amount of the final judgment is then the capital sum likely to be awarded, not the capitalised value of the whole claim (Eeles at [31]). The first step counts damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, special damages to date and interest on both, and usually accommodation costs. Other future losses are added only where the judge can confidently predict that the trial judge will award them as a lump sum and there is a real need for the money now (Eeles at [43] and [45]; Smith v Bailey at [19]).

What the cases have ordered

These are the courts’ findings on the evidence in each case, not benchmarks.

CaseThe likely final judgmentWhat was ordered
Spillman v Bradfield Riding Centre [2007] EWHC 89 (QB)£260,000 on full liability; the defendant had accepted 70% liability, giving £182,00075% of £182,000, or £136,500, less the £80,000 already paid: a further £56,500 (at [1], [2] and [20])
Smith v Bailey [2014] EWHC 2569 (QB)At least £710,000 as a capital sum, assessed conservatively and including £300,000 for accommodation£500,000, taking into account £105,000 of voluntary interim payments; upheld on appeal (at [15], [17] and [40])
Cobham Hire Services Ltd v Eeles [2009] EWCA Civ 204About £590,000 as the likely capital award, leaving aside future losses that might be paid periodicallyThe further £1.2 million ordered below was refused on appeal: with £450,000 already paid, there was very little room for more (at [8], [40] and [41])

In Spillman, counsel for the defendant put forward 75%, a figure she said had found some favour in Dolman v Rowe [2005] EWCA Civ 715; counsel for the claimant argued for more, because much of the claim was for losses already incurred and trial was a long way off. The judge chose 75%: the time already passed and still to pass was a significant factor, and the Court of Protection’s control of the money gave the defendant some protection against overpayment (at [18] to [20]).

The principle is the one stated in Eeles: the more conservative the estimate of the likely award, the higher the proportion of it that may be reasonable (Eeles at [43]).

Applying for an interim payment of damages

  • The conditions. The court may make an order only if a condition in CPR 25.23 is met: the defendant has admitted liability to pay damages or another sum; the claimant has judgment for damages, or another sum other than costs, to be assessed; the court is satisfied that at trial the claimant would obtain judgment for a substantial amount of money (other than costs) against that defendant; in a claim for possession of land, the defendant would be liable to pay for its use and occupation of the land while the claim was pending; or, where there are two or more defendants who are all public bodies or insured in respect of the claim (including cover under section 151 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 or through the Motor Insurers’ Bureau), the claimant would obtain judgment for a substantial amount against at least one of them, but the court cannot say which.
  • Timing. Not before the end of the period for filing an acknowledgment of service that applies to the defendant (CPR 25.21(1)). The claimant may make more than one application (CPR 25.21(2)), and the court can order an interim payment without an application when it disposes of the claim or part of it (CPR 25.21(7)).
  • Notice and evidence. The application notice is served at least 14 days before the hearing, with evidence; the respondent’s evidence is due at least 7 days before the hearing and any reply at least 3 days before (CPR 25.21(3) to (5)). The evidence must deal with the sum sought, the items or matters it is for, the sum for which final judgment is likely to be given, the reasons for believing a CPR 25.23 condition is met and any other relevant matters, and in a personal injury claim special damages and past and future loss; supporting documents, including any medical report, are exhibited (CPR 25.22).
  • Benefits. On a contested application in a personal injury claim where the defendant is liable to repay benefits to the Secretary of State, the defendant must obtain a certificate of recoverable benefits and file it at the hearing, and the claimant is paid the net amount (CPR 25.24).
  • Children and protected parties. The court’s permission is needed before a voluntary interim payment is made on a claim by a child or protected party (CPR 25.20(5)), and no such payment is valid without the court’s approval (CPR 21.10(1)).
  • Afterwards. The court may order payment by instalments (CPR 25.20(3)). The payment is not disclosed to the trial judge until liability and amount are decided, unless the defendant agrees (CPR 25.25), and the court can adjust it, order repayment and award interest on an overpayment (CPR 25.20(6) to (8)).
  • Small claims. Part 25 does not apply to a small claim, except for interim injunctions (CPR 27.2(1)(a)), so there is no interim payment on the small claims track.

The application is made on Form N244, on notice, and the court fee is £321 (fee 2.4(a)). The interim payment preset in our free N244 application notice builder fills in the rule and the 14 days’ notice and prompts for the evidence; the figures and the grounds are yours.

Older cases, including Eeles and Smith v Bailey, refer to CPR 25.6 and 25.7 (Eeles at [2]). Part 25 was replaced from 6 April 2025 (S.I. 2025/106), and the cap and the duty to take account of contributory negligence are now CPR 25.20(1) and (2).

What percentage is a payment on account of costs?

An interim payment under Part 25 is on account of a sum other than costs (CPR 25.1(1)(l)). Costs have their own rule: where the court orders a party to pay costs subject to detailed assessment, it will order that party to pay a reasonable sum on account of costs, unless there is good reason not to do so (CPR 44.2(8)). No percentage is fixed here either.

In Cubic Transportation Systems Ltd v Transport for London [2026] EWHC 211 (TCC) the judge accepted that there is no fixed percentage, and that the amount depends on the costs claimed against the court’s provisional view of what is reasonable and proportionate, and on the quality of the information the receiving party provides (at [11] and [12]). He ordered £720,866.85, which was 60% of the £1,201,444.75 claimed, having no doubt that at least that sum would be recovered on assessment (at [7] and [14]). Our note on Cubic v TfL sets out the reasoning.

In Abbott v Ministry of Defence [2026] EWHC 2083 (KB) the claimants sought 65% on account and the Ministry of Defence suggested 36%. There was no signed draft bill or certified statement or schedule of costs, and the court had concerns about the rates, hours, seniority, delegation and disbursements; it made a broad-brush estimate, allowed for a margin of error and ordered 50% (at [73] to [78]), that is 50% of the costs recoverable under its order for 60% of the claimants’ costs, after deducting £1,355,000 already paid on account: £2,515,194.95 (at [79]). Our note on the Abbott costs judgment works through the figures.

The same question can arise later in the assessment. Once the receiving party has filed its request for a detailed assessment hearing, the court may issue an interim costs certificate for such sum as it considers appropriate (CPR 47.16(1)), and when it sets aside a default costs certificate it can attach conditions and order a payment on account (PD 47 para 11.3). For interest on what remains unpaid, the free interest on costs calculator allows for payments on account.

How DMD Costs can help

We do not value damages claims or advise on interim payments of damages. Our work is the costs: DMD Costs prepares and negotiates claimant costs for solicitor firms in housing disrepair, clinical negligence and MoD NIHL claims. Where the size of a payment on account turns on the quality of the costs information, as the court accepted in Cubic and found in Abbott, the bill or schedule behind the request is the part we prepare. The fee is fixed and agreed before any work begins.

Sources