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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll