header-logo header-logo

Be mindful

30 October 2014 / Elizabeth Carson
Issue: 7628 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail
carson

What steps should you take if you have concerns about a party’s capacity to enter into a negotiated agreement, asks Elizabeth Carson

A recent High Court case provides a useful reminder of practitioners’ obligations to the court when a party lacks capacity. MAP v RAP [2013] EWHC 4784 (Fam) concerned an application for permission to appeal a consent order where—among other reasons—the wife argued that she lacked capacity to enter into a compromise agreement with her husband, as she had been suffering from manic depression at the time the agreement was reached. The decision of Mr Justice Mostyn provides a helpful reminder of the steps that practitioners should take when they encounter a party who appears to lack capacity:

  • Practitioners must notify the court if they have concerns about a party’s capacity to conduct the proceedings (Practice Direction 15B, para 1.3);
  • The compromise of proceedings by a protected party is not valid unless approved by the court (CPR 21.10); and
  • An application can be made to a court of first instance to revoke or vary
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll