Supreme Court rule consent order settling a PI claim is not binding
A signed and sealed consent order settling a personal injury claim brought by a mentally incapacitated claimant was not binding, the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled.
The order had been agreed between the parties and sealed by the court, although without a formal court approval of the suitability of terms of settlement. The claimant, whose claim had been compromised by agreement but at a substantial undervalue, sought to have it set aside.
Delivering judgment in Dunhill v Burgin [2014] UKSC 18, Lady Hale said: “The policy underlying the Civil Procedure Rules is clear: that children and protected parties require and deserve protection, not only from themselves but also from their legal advisers.”
Legal consultant, Nicholas Bevan said the ruling was “important in that it acknowledges the need for special provision to protect these particularly vulnerable individuals, and it demonstrates in vivid terms why the lack of proper legal representation combined with a court’s independent appraisal as to the suitability of an award is so important. In this case a claim worth up to £2m was purportedly settled for just £12,500.”
Bevan wrote on the need for similar safeguards for minors and protected parties, in the context of untraced drivers’ claims, for www.newlawjournal.co.uk.
He said the Dunhill principles apply to settlements agreed under the Uninsured Drivers Agreement 1999, as they are governed by the Civil Procedure Rules, and they should also apply by analogy to settlements under the Untraced Drivers Agreement 2003.
