Roult v North West Strategic Health Authority [2009] EWCA Civ 444 (20 May 2009)

Roult v North West Strategic Health Authority [2009] EWCA Civ 444 (20 May 2009)

CPR 3.1(7) cannot be used to revoke or vary a final order approving a settlement in a personal injury case, even where the basis of the settlement is later challenged by a change in circumstances. The interests of justice and finality require that such orders remain binding unless proper grounds for appeal exist, such as fraud or misrepresentation. The Barder jurisdiction does not extend to these circumstances.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Civ 444
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Greg Anthony Roult (a protected person by his mother and litigation friend, ANGELA HOLT); Defendant/respondent: North West Strategic Health Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Interlocutory Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Variation or Revocation of Court Orders, Approval of Settlements for Protected Parties, Finality of Consent Orders, CPR 3.1(7), Barder Jurisdiction
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Variation or Revocation of Court Orders Approval of Settlements for Protected Parties Finality of Consent Orders CPR 3.1(7) Barder Jurisdiction

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Greg Anthony Roult (a protected person by his mother and litigation friend, ANGELA HOLT)

Claimant/appellant

North West Strategic Health Authority

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Interlocutory Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CPR 3.1(7) permits the court to revoke or vary approval of a settlement in a personal injury case for a protected party
  2. 2 Whether a supervening event (change in care needs) justifies reopening a final settlement order

Ratio Decidendi

CPR 3.1(7) cannot be used to revoke or vary a final order approving a settlement in a personal injury case, even where the basis of the settlement is later challenged by a change in circumstances. The interests of justice and finality require that such orders remain binding unless proper grounds for appeal exist, such as fraud or misrepresentation. The Barder jurisdiction does not extend to these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.