Simonetta v Tomon

When approving a compromise on behalf of a child, the court must decide whether it provides a real benefit to the child. The inquiry requires a fair, cautious and enquiring assessment of the proposed bargain. The court should consider both its financial value and relevant non-financial benefits, including the effect of avoiding prolonged and burdensome litigation on the child’s welfare. The question may be tested by asking whether a prudent and reasonable adult, acting with intelligent self-interest after sustained consideration, would accept the proposal.

The claimants sought provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 from the estate of the deceased, including the proceeds of a company sale. The application before the court concerned approval of a compromise reached on behalf of two infant claimants. The proposed settlement followed disputes concerning domicile, the ownership of the sale proceeds, the value of the estate and potential tax liabilities. The central issue was whether the compromise was for the children’s benefit and should be approved.

1. The court approved the compromise on behalf of the two infant claimants. It ordered payment of £950,000 to them, in equal shares, and approved the related terms of the settlement, subject to amendment of paragraph 8 of the schedule.
2. In assessing an infant compromise, the court must ask whether it is for the real benefit of the child. The task must be approached with a fair, cautious and enquiring mind.
3. Applying Wright and Gates [2012] 1 WLR 882, the court may ask whether a competent and reasonable person would enter the bargain. In particular, it may consider whether a prudent adult, motivated by intelligent self-interest and after sustained consideration, would accept it.
4. The assessment is not confined to the amount recovered. The court must weigh the financial value of the settlement against relevant non-financial benefits. Here, the settlement gave the children substantial provision while avoiding litigation that could have continued for months or years, imposed emotional and financial burdens on their mother, and distracted her from their care.
5. The compromise was therefore reasonable and sensible in both financial and ancillary-benefit terms. The estate was ordered to pay the claimants’ costs of the hearing, summarily assessed at £9,985. A transcript was ordered at public expense.