Lee Stammers v Christopher Dyson

When approving a settlement for a protected party, the court must be satisfied that the proposed terms are in that party’s best interests. The assessment includes the structure and adequacy of any lump sum, periodical payments, indexation, future care and treatment needs, and associated management expenses. The court may approve payment from the award to a litigation friend for past gratuitous care where satisfied that the payment is appropriate. It may also approve agreed payments on account of costs and make the related periodical payments orders.

Lee Stammers v Christopher Dyson arose from a road traffic collision in which the defendant’s liability was admitted and judgment entered. The claimant suffered catastrophic brain injuries and was a protected party represented by his mother and litigation friend.

An earlier settlement concerning accommodation had been approved. The remaining issue was quantum. At an approval hearing, the court considered a proposed settlement comprising a substantial lump sum, three streams of index-linked periodical payments for care, therapies, and Court of Protection and deputyship expenses, together with payments for past gratuitous care and costs.

The central question was whether the proposed settlement and associated orders were in the claimant’s best interests.

1. Approval granted. Having considered the confidential legal advice, the independent financial adviser’s report, the evidence, and the schedule and counter-schedule of loss, the court was satisfied that the proposed settlement was sensible from the claimant’s point of view and in his best interests.
2. The settlement was approved in the proposed structure: a lump sum of £3.85 million, subject to credits for previous interim payments and the amount repayable to the Compensation Recovery Unit, leaving £2,248,677.36 payable into the claimant’s Deputyship Account.
3. The court approved three streams of lifelong index-linked periodical payments. These covered future care and case management, future occupational therapy and physiotherapy, and Court of Protection and deputyship expenses. The proposed ASHE 6115, ASHE 222, and Guideline Hourly Rate indices were explained and justified by the evidence.
4. The court approved payment by the deputy of £75,000 to the claimant’s litigation friend for past gratuitous care. It also ordered a further agreed payment on account of costs of £516,586.09.
5. The court directed that an order containing the appropriate recitals and the periodical payments provisions be made. All aspects of the proposed order were found appropriate.