Hinduja v Hinduja & Ors

Hinduja v Hinduja & Ors

The court is satisfied on the evidence that SP lacks capacity to conduct proceedings and that Vinoo Hinduja meets the requirements to act as litigation friend under CPR 21.6. Steps taken prior to her appointment are regularised under CPR 21.3(4). The privacy application is dismissed except for a limited order requiring applications for access to certain documents to be made on notice, to protect the privacy of Jersey proceedings and sensitive information.

Parties
Claimant: Srichand Parmanand Hinduja; First Defendant: Gopichand Parmanand Hinduja; Second Defendant: Prakash Parmanand Hinduja; Third Defendant: Ashok Parmanand Hinduja
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (civil, Trusts/probate) / Interlocutory Applications—appointment of Litigation Friend and Privacy Application
Outcome
Vinoo Hinduja appointed as litigation friend; steps regularised; privacy application dismissed except for limited order on notice for certain documents.
Legal Topics
Litigation Friend Appointment, Protected Party Status, Open Justice Principle, Privacy in Court Proceedings
Civil Procedure Trusts and Probate Litigation Friend Appointment Protected Party Status Open Justice Principle Privacy in Court Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Srichand Parmanand Hinduja

Claimant

Gopichand Parmanand Hinduja

First Defendant

Prakash Parmanand Hinduja

Second Defendant

Ashok Parmanand Hinduja

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (civil, Trusts/probate) / Interlocutory Applications—appointment of Litigation Friend and Privacy Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Vinoo Hinduja should be appointed as litigation friend for Srichand Parmanand Hinduja under CPR 21.6
  2. 2 Whether steps taken prior to appointment should be regularised under CPR 21.3(4)
  3. 3 Whether a permanent privacy order restricting access to court documents should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The court is satisfied on the evidence that SP lacks capacity to conduct proceedings and that Vinoo Hinduja meets the requirements to act as litigation friend under CPR 21.6. Steps taken prior to her appointment are regularised under CPR 21.3(4). The privacy application is dismissed except for a limited order requiring applications for access to certain documents to be made on notice, to protect the privacy of Jersey proceedings and sensitive information.

Court Disposition

Vinoo Hinduja appointed as litigation friend; steps regularised; privacy application dismissed except for limited order on notice for certain documents.

Orders

  • Vinoo Hinduja appointed as litigation friend for Srichand Parmanand Hinduja under CPR 21.6
  • All steps taken prior to appointment regularised under CPR 21.3(4)