Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
View all articles
Authors

CAPACITY: Dunhill (By Her Litigation Friend) v Burgin (No 2) [2012] EWHC 3163 (QB), [2013] COPLR 56

Sep 29, 2018, 21:03 PM
Slug : capacity-dunhill-by-her-litigation-friend-v-burgin-no-2-2012-ewhc-3163-qb-2013-coplr-56
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 9, 2013, 04:11 AM
Article ID : 102067

(Queen's Bench Division, Bean J, 9 November 2012)

The woman suffered severe brain damage in a road traffic accident and brought a claim for compensation. Her claim was settled for £12,500, however, no consideration was given to whether she was a protected party for the purposes of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 and, therefore, was in need of a litigation friend and the court's approval to settle the claim. The woman sought to set aside the compromise, by her litigation friend, and it was now estimated that her claim was in fact worth somewhere between £800,000 and £2m.

As a preliminary issue it was found that the woman lacked capacity to conduct proceedings at the time of the settlement and the court was now asked to consider whether the court's approval was needed to compromise a claim by a protected party was necessary pursuant to CPR 21.10.

The court found that the compromise was invalid. When a claim was issued in the civil courts, the CPR were, so far as relevant, impliedly incorporated into any agreement the parties reached to settle the dispute, especially if the settlement was embodied in a judgment of the court; and the rules thus incorporated took precedence over the general law of contract. Even though a person was not declared a protected person officially and was not acting by a litigation friend, a person who lacked capacity was nevertheless a protected party for the purposes of CPR 21.10.

 

Categories :
  • Court of Protection
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from