Revill v Damiani

Revill v Damiani

CPR 21.10 is a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of protecting protected parties, and the rule-making committee acted within its discretionary area of judgment. Therefore, the defendant was entitled to withdraw from the compromise before court approval, and CPR 21.10 is not incompatible with articles 6 and 14 of the ECHR.

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 Road Traffic Accident) / Trial of Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Application for declaration dismissed; no incompatibility found; directions for trial given.
Legal Topics
Compromise of Actions, Protected Parties, Court Approval of Settlements, Discrimination Under ECHR, Proportionality, Case Management
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Human Rights Compromise of Actions 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 5
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 Road Traffic Accident) / Trial of Preliminary Issue

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 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 the rule-making committee acted within its discretionary area of judgment. Therefore, the defendant was entitled to withdraw from the compromise before court approval, and CPR 21.10 is not incompatible with articles 6 and 14 of the ECHR.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Application for declaration that the defendant was bound by the compromise of 24th February 2017 dismissed.
  • No declaration made that CPR 21.10 is incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998.