header-logo header-logo

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

Capacity conundrum

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

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll