Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
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