The claimant, a child, had sought damages. An agreement was made to compromise the claim. Later the child sought to withdraw from it.
Held: No court order had been made to approve the compromise, and therefore no binding arrangement existed. Dietz was binding and clear. Estoppel might have been available in different circumstances.
Simon Brown LJ pointed out that ‘the claim’ in CPR 21.10 must mean the cause of action rather than any proceedings in which the claim is asserted. This is clear from the wording of CPR 21.10(2), which provides the procedure whereby settlements made before proceedings are begun are approved by the court (that is, as pointed out in Dietz, by a simplified process rather than having to issue a claim in the ordinary way): ‘Where – (a) before proceedings in which a claim is made by, or on behalf of, or against a child or patient [now, protected party] (whether alone or with any other person) are begun, an agreement is reached for the settlement of the claim; and (b) the sole purpose of proceedings on that claim is to obtain the approval of the court to a settlement or compromise of the claim, the claim must (i) be made using the procedure set out in Part 8 (alternative procedure for claims); and (ii) include a request to the court for approval of the settlement or compromise.’
Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Lord Justice Simon Brown Lord Justice Thomas
[2003] EWCA Civ 1547, Times 13-Nov-2003, [2004] 4 All ER 378, [2004] 1 WLR 462
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Dietz v Lennig Chemicals Limited HL 1969
Before proceedings, the plaintiff widow accepted the defendants’ offer to settle her and her infant son’s Fatal Accidents Acts claim ‘subject to the approval of the court’. A summons was then issued for the court to approve that settlement. The . .
Cited by:
Cited – Bailey v Warre CA 7-Feb-2006
The claimant had been severely injured in a road traffic accident. His claim was compromised and embodied in a court order, but later a question was raised as to whether he had had mental capacity at the time to make the compromise he had.
Cited – Dunhill v Burgin SC 12-Mar-2014
Lack of Capacity – Effect on Proceedings
The Court was asked ‘First, what is the test for deciding whether a person lacks the mental capacity to conduct legal proceedings on her own behalf (in which case the Civil Procedure Rules require that she has a litigation friend to conduct the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 August 2021; Ref: scu.187540