Dunhill v Burgin [2012] EWHC 3163 (QB) (09 November 2012)

Dunhill v Burgin [2012] EWHC 3163 (QB) (09 November 2012)

CPR Part 21.10 invalidates a settlement involving a protected party reached without court approval, even if incapacity was unknown to the parties at the time; the compromise rule is a procedural modification validly made under rule-making powers and takes precedence over common law contract principles in litigation.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3163 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Joanne Dunhill; Litigation Friend: Paul Tasker; Defendant: Shaun Burgin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Preliminary Issue Judgment on Validity of Settlement; Post Court of Appeal Remittal
Outcome
Compromise and consent judgment of January 2003 set aside; substantive claim to proceed to trial.
Legal Topics
Compromise of Claims, Court Approval of Settlements, Protected Parties, Civil Procedure Rules, Mental Capacity Act
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Mental Capacity Compromise of Claims Court Approval of Settlements Protected Parties Civil Procedure Rules Mental Capacity Act

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 15 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 Issue Judgment on Validity of Settlement; Post Court of Appeal Remittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does CPR Part 21.10 invalidate a settlement reached by a protected party without court approval, even if incapacity was unknown at the time?
  2. 2 Does the Civil Procedure Rule Committee have power to modify common law principles regarding contracts with persons lacking capacity?

Ratio Decidendi

CPR Part 21.10 invalidates a settlement involving a protected party reached without court approval, even if incapacity was unknown to the parties at the time; the compromise rule is a procedural modification validly made under rule-making powers and takes precedence over common law contract principles in litigation.

Court Disposition

Compromise and consent judgment of January 2003 set aside; substantive claim to proceed to trial.

Orders

  • Certificate granted under s 12 Administration of Justice Act 1969 for leapfrog appeal to Supreme Court.
  • Defendant to pay claimant's costs of preliminary issue.