The Claimant suffered a severe traumatic brain injury when he was a child pedestrian injured in a collision with a car as he was attempting to cross the road.
In early adulthood, and as part of his planned rehabilitation, it was considered appropriate for the Claimant to move out of his family home and attempt a trial of supported independent living in a property just a few miles away.
Unfortunately, the trial soon demonstrated that even with professional support the Claimant was not capable of living independently and that further rehabilitation and long-term support would be required.
In this regard, whilst it was still considered to be in the Claimant’s best interests for him to start living separately from his parents so that he could develop the skills needed for independent living, it was also considered important that he should live in very close proximity to them so that they could continue to be his primary carers until he was ready to transition to independent living with professional support.
Following constructive discussions with those acting on behalf of the Defendant, it was agreed that the best way forward in the particular circumstances of the Claimant’s case would be for the Defendant to provide a substantial interim payment so that two separate but adjacent properties could be bought: one for the Claimant to live in and the other for his parents to live in.
Upon two suitable properties being identified, the Claimant applied to the High Court for approval of the interim payment and, the Court being satisfied that (i) the proposal was in the Claimant’s best interests and (ii) the criteria set out by the Court of Appeal in Eeles v Cobham Hire Services Limited [2009] EWCA Civ 2009 had been met, approval was granted.