Ask a Law Question, Get an Answer ASAP!
Not really as whilst that is inferred, it is not an admission of liability (i.e. a positive statement which admits liability in some way). By leaving something out or not saying something then an adverse inference can be drawn but that's it - you could apply to strike out a case based on that but the applicant still needs to prove their assertion before a judge. The rule for an interim payment is clear in that either you need an admission of liability - or a judgment in your favour (both positive things, nothing is inferred).
I hope this clears the issue up. I realise you think this is unfair but in a civil case you still need to prove your case on the balance of probabilities.