Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
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