WEG v Nicholas Brown

When approving a settlement for a protected party, the court must determine whether the compromise is in the claimant’s best interests and whether the proposed arrangements are appropriate. The court should consider whether damages ought to be paid wholly or partly by periodical payments, having regard to all the circumstances, including age, life expectancy and acceleration issues. It may also approve specified payments for gratuitous assistance and give directions for the control of recovered funds where suitable arrangements already exist.

This was a Part 8 claim brought on behalf of a protected party who lacked capacity to conduct litigation. The claim arose from a road accident in which the claimant suffered a traumatic brain injury and multiple physical injuries. Liability was admitted, but contributory negligence, causation of cognitive problems, life expectancy, care and case-management needs remained disputed.

Following a joint settlement meeting, the parties agreed a gross settlement of £500,000. The court was asked to approve the compromise, the proposed payments for gratuitous assistance, the treatment of damages, and the arrangements for controlling the recovered money.

1. The court approved the proposed settlement. Having considered the confidential opinion prepared for the claimant, the papers and the oral submissions, the judge was satisfied that the compromise was sensible and in the claimant’s best interests.
2. The settlement reflected substantial disputes about whether the claimant’s continuing cognitive problems resulted from the accident or underlying dementia, as well as disputes concerning life expectancy, future care and case management. No deduction for contributory negligence was claimed for the purposes of the settlement meeting, although the issue was not formally conceded.
3. The court was satisfied that the parties had properly considered whether damages should be paid wholly or partly by periodical payments. All the circumstances were relevant, including the claimant’s age, life expectancy and issues concerning acceleration. In the circumstances, the absence of a periodical-payment component was sensible.
4. From the specified balance of the settlement, the court approved limited payments for gratuitous assistance to the claimant’s wife, his litigation friend and his other daughter. The distinct time periods were recorded in the order.
5. No further directions were necessary for control of the recovered money. It was to be paid into the claimant’s solicitors’ account, in circumstances where the litigation friend was the donee of a registered lasting power of attorney for the claimant’s property and financial affairs. An order was made in the proposed form.

First-instance decision. The judgment does not state any prior appellate history.