header-logo header-logo

Capacity conundrum

27 June 2014 / Richard Scorer
Issue: 7612 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

The court must protect protected parties, says Richard Scorer

In English law, a contract made by a person lacking capacity is valid unless the other party to the contract knew, or ought to have known, that he lacked capacity, in which case the contract is voidable. But things become more complicated when that contract is an agreement to compromise litigation, particularly litigation relating to the personal injury which caused the lack of capacity in the first place.

Protecting vulnerable claimants

In any piece of litigation—a personal injury claim is the most common example—the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) dictate that a claimant who lacks capacity should be represented in the proceedings by a litigation friend, and that any settlement should be approved by the court. These provisions of CPR are designed to protect vulnerable claimants who cannot sensibly understand or consent to settlements being reached on their behalf. That need to protect the vulnerable claimant trumps the need for finality in litigation: if a settlement is void because of capacity issues, the case can be re-opened.

So

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll