header-logo header-logo

Settling infant costs

17 February 2011 / Lisa Wright
Issue: 7453 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

In the first of two articles, Lisa Wright reports on the costs dilemmas in infant approvals

CPR Pt 21 applies to all types of claims, not merely road traffic accidents or personal injury cases. It is clear from the commentary that accompanies CPR 21.10 that a settlement, compromise or payment is not confined to cases where the infant is a claimant but equally applies where the infant is a defendant.

The litigation procedure can take many different paths which in turn affects the issue of costs. If liability and quantum is disputed, any approval will follow a successful result at trial. Proceedings will be issued pursuant to Pt 7 and costs are likely to be summarily assessed following the conclusion of the trial and infant approval hearing. Where liability has been agreed on a split liability basis but quantum remains an issue, as per Simon Brown LJ in Drinkall v Whitwood [2003] All ER (D) 76 (Nov), proceedings will be issued pursuant to Pt 7 for the court’s approval to be obtained for the split

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

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll