The claimant asked that a settlement of her personal injuries claim be set aside on the basis that it had been made at a time when she lacked capacity, and that the agreement had required approval by the court which was not sought. The parties were agreed that the test of whether a person was a ‘patient’ was whether she had the mental capacity to conduct the proceedings. They further agreed that this was to be judged by reference to her capacity to make the decisions likely to be required of her in the course of the proceedings, a test derived from the judgment of Chadwick LJ in Masterman-Lister.
Held: Capacity was to be judged by reference to the decisions which the claimant was actually required to take in the action as drafted and not to the decisions which she might have been required to take had it been differently framed. On the evidence, the presumption that she did have that capacity had not been re butted.
Silber J
[2011] EWHC 464 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Dunhill v Burgin CA 3-Apr-2012
The claimant had been severely injured in a road traffic accident, and had settled her claim for damages. It was not appreciated at the time that she lacked capacity to make such a decision. The court was now asked what it should consider on . .
At First Instance (1) – 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.430501