header-logo header-logo

Capacity to bring litigation

04 July 2013
Issue: 7567 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

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.

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll