Dunhill v Burgin [2011] EWHC 464 (QB) (07 March 2011)

Dunhill v Burgin [2011] EWHC 464 (QB) (07 March 2011)

When assessing capacity retrospectively, the court must confine itself to examining the decisions in fact required of the claimant in the action as conducted. The presumption of capacity was not rebutted on the evidence; the claimant had capacity to enter the compromise agreement on 7 January 2003.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 464
Parties
Claimant: Joanne Dunhill; Litigation Friend: Paul Tasker; Defendant: Shaun Burgin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Preliminary Issues Hearing
Outcome
Application to set aside consent order dismissed
Legal Topics
Capacity to Litigate, Consent Order Validity, Court Approval of Settlements, Retrospective Assessment of Capacity
Civil Procedure Mental Capacity Personal Injury Capacity to Litigate Consent Order Validity Court Approval of Settlements Retrospective Assessment of Capacity

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joanne Dunhill

Claimant

Paul Tasker

Litigation Friend

Shaun Burgin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Preliminary Issues Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the consent order settling the claimant's personal injury claim is void due to lack of capacity and absence of court approval
  2. 2 Whether capacity should be assessed based on decisions actually required or also those potentially required if litigation had been conducted differently

Ratio Decidendi

When assessing capacity retrospectively, the court must confine itself to examining the decisions in fact required of the claimant in the action as conducted. The presumption of capacity was not rebutted on the evidence; the claimant had capacity to enter the compromise agreement on 7 January 2003.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside consent order dismissed

Orders

  • Issue of CPR 21.10(1) application adjourned