Coles v Perfect & Ors

The court has inherent jurisdiction to approve a settlement where there is doubt about a claimant’s capacity, even though neither party alleges incapacity and no declaration has been made that the claimant is a protected party. A separate capacity trial is unnecessary where it would be disproportionate. Approval under CPR 21 rule 10 remains effective if the claimant is later found to lack capacity.

The claimant, aged 14 when seriously injured in a marine accident, applied for approval of a personal injury settlement. Liability had been admitted, and the settlement reflected the statutory liability limit under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.

Neither party alleged incapacity, although the evidence raised doubt about it. The issue was whether the court could approve the settlement before protected-party status had been determined and whether that approval would be effective.

1. The court had inherent jurisdiction to approve the settlement.
2. Masterman-Lister v Brutton & Co [2003] 1 WLR 1511 and Saulle v Nouvet [2007] EWHC 2902 (QB) concerned cases where capacity was actually in issue. They did not require a capacity trial in the present circumstances.
3. Under CPR 21 rule 10, approval would remain effective if the claimant were later found to lack capacity. A prior declaration was unnecessary.
4. A capacity trial would have been disproportionate. The settlement was approved.