Revill v Damiani [2017] EWHC 2630 (QB) (27 October 2017)

Revill v Damiani [2017] EWHC 2630 (QB) (27 October 2017)

CPR 21.10 is a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of protecting protected parties and is within the discretionary area of judgment of the rule-making body; therefore, the defendant was entitled to withdraw from the compromise before court approval.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2630
Parties
Claimant: Joseph James Penn Revill; Litigation Friend for Claimant: Kirsty Marie Jarram; Defendant: Philip Damiani
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury / Trial of Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Compromise and Settlement, Protected Parties, Court Approval of Settlements, Discrimination Under ECHR, Proportionality, Case Management
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Human Rights Compromise and Settlement Protected Parties Court Approval of Settlements Discrimination Under ECHR Proportionality +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph James Penn Revill

Claimant

Kirsty Marie Jarram

Litigation Friend for Claimant

Philip Damiani

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Personal Injury / Trial of Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is entitled to withdraw from a compromise agreement with a protected party prior to court approval under CPR 21.10
  2. 2 Whether CPR 21.10 is incompatible with articles 6 and 14 of the ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

CPR 21.10 is a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of protecting protected parties and is within the discretionary area of judgment of the rule-making body; therefore, the defendant was entitled to withdraw from the compromise before court approval.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration refused that the defendant was bound by the compromise of 24 February 2017
  • No declaration made that CPR 21.10 is incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998