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

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll