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
No fault divorce - the end of the blame game
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which passed into law on 25 June 2020, will introduce "no fault" divorce in England and Wales for the first time. This article looks at what it...
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
View all articles
Authors

CAPACITY TO LITIGATE: Dunhill v Burgin[2012] EWCA Civ 397, [2012] COPLR 679

Sep 29, 2018, 18:41 PM
Slug : capacity-to-litigate-dunhill-v-burgin-2012-ewca-civ-397-2012-coplr-679
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 6, 2013, 09:05 AM
Article ID : 101619

(Court of Appeal, Ward, Lewison LJJ, Sir Mark Potter, 3 April 2012)

The woman suffered severe brain damage as the result of a road traffic accident. She claimed damages but no consideration was given to whether proceedings should be conducted by a litigation friend on her behalf. She settled the claim for £12,500 but her advisors now sought to set that aside on the basis that at the time she was incapable of managing and administering her property and affairs.

It was clear that with proper advice the woman would never have settled her claim at this stage. For the woman to have had capacity to litigate she would have needed to be aware of the small fortune in damages that she was potentially giving up. Had she been recognised as a patient the court would have never approved the settlement. Appeal allowed. 

 

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