Loughlin v Singh and others [2013] EWHC 1641 (QB), [2013] All ER (D) 219 (Jun)
It was an established principle that, to have capacity, the claimant required: (i) the insight and understanding of the fact that he had a problem in respect of which he needed advice; (ii) having identified the problem, it would be necessary for him to seek an appropriate adviser and to instruct him with sufficient clarity to enable him to understand the problem, and to advise him appropriately; and (iii) sufficient mental capacity to understand and to make decisions based upon or otherwise give effect to such advice as he might receive. Further, if the claimant was vulnerable to exploitation or was prone to make rash or irresponsible decisions, he did not necessarily lack capacity. However, the court, in reaching its conclusion, might take such matters into account. In determining capacity, the court had to consider the individual claimant and the particular context, including the fact that the claimant would have control of a substantial fund.