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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll