The appellant physician appealed the refusal to replace the future care and gross-up components of a personal injury judgment with periodic payments under s. 116 of the Courts of Justice Act.
The Court of Appeal held that where a plaintiff seeks gross-up, periodic payments are presumptively required unless the plaintiff shows they are not in the plaintiff's best interests, having regard to all the circumstances.
The trial judge properly treated the inquiry globally, accepted that the plaintiff's financial plan need not be confined to future care spending, and was entitled to consider the lack of a guarantee period, the structure's inflexibility, and concerns about prosthetic innovation and medical-cost inflation.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
