RPY & Ors v Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust

Where a proposed settlement includes claims belonging to protected parties, the court must determine whether the settlement and any apportionment are in their best interests. Approval is appropriate where, having considered the advice and papers, the settlement is sensible, fair and appropriate from the protected parties’ perspective.

This was a clinical negligence claim arising from the Defendant Trust’s admitted failure to provide adequate mental health care to the Children’s Father before his suicide. The Mother claimed on behalf of the estate and the dependants, including the two Children, who were protected parties.

The parties reached a settlement of £1,250,000. The proposed arrangement allocated £50,000, divided equally between the Children, to be paid into court funds and held in special investment accounts until majority. The issue was whether the settlement and apportionment should be approved as being in the Children’s best interests.

1. The court approved the proposed settlement and ordered that it be implemented in the terms discussed with counsel.
2. The Defendant had admitted liability, including that its negligence caused the Father’s suicide and that there had been no effective crisis intervention during the four days before his death.
3. There had been no trial on contested quantum issues. The judge considered the advice of counsel and the papers in the case, including the proposed lump sum and the allocation for the Children.
4. Having considered those materials, the judge concluded that the settlement was sensible and that the apportionment was fair and appropriate from the Children’s point of view. It was therefore in their best interests to approve it.