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 legitimate aims of protecting protected parties, and the rule-making committee's approach is within its discretionary area of judgment. The defendant is entitled to withdraw from the compromise before court approval, and CPR 21.10 is not incompatible with ECHR Article 14 when read with Article 6 or Article 1 of the First Protocol.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2630 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Joseph James Penn Revill; Litigation Friend: Kirsty Marie Jarram; Defendant: Philip Damiani
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Preliminary Issue / Judgment on Preliminary Issue Regarding Withdrawal From Compromise
Outcome
Application for declaration dismissed; no incompatibility found; trial directions issued.
Legal Topics
Compromise and Settlement, Protected Parties, Court Approval, Discrimination Under ECHR, Proportionality, Case Management
Civil Procedure Human Rights Personal Injury Compromise and Settlement Protected Parties Court Approval 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 6 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph James Penn Revill

Claimant

Kirsty Marie Jarram

Litigation Friend

Philip Damiani

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Preliminary Issue / Judgment on Preliminary Issue Regarding Withdrawal From Compromise

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is entitled to withdraw from a compromise agreement with a protected party before court approval under CPR 21.10
  2. 2 Whether CPR 21.10 is incompatible with ECHR Article 14 when read with Article 6 or Article 1 of the First Protocol

Ratio Decidendi

CPR 21.10 is a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims of protecting protected parties, and the rule-making committee's approach is within its discretionary area of judgment. The defendant is entitled to withdraw from the compromise before court approval, and CPR 21.10 is not incompatible with ECHR Article 14 when read with Article 6 or Article 1 of the First Protocol.

Court Disposition

Application for declaration dismissed; no incompatibility found; trial directions issued.

Orders

  • Application for declaration that defendant was bound by compromise dismissed.
  • No declaration of incompatibility of CPR 21.10 with Human Rights Act 1998.