header-logo header-logo

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

Settling infant costs

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

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 cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
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
back-to-top-scroll