EEE (a child proceeding by her Father and Litigation Friend BBB) v Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust

When approving a settlement involving a protected party, the court must decide whether the proposed terms are in that party’s best interests. The assessment requires consideration of the proposed financial structure, future care needs and the protection provided by lump-sum and periodical payments. The court may make an anonymity order where it is necessary and appropriate, having regard to the principles governing anonymity in civil proceedings. A remote hearing is permissible where it is necessary and justified, causes no prejudice, and preserves open justice.

The claimant, a child lacking capacity, brought clinical negligence proceedings against an NHS trust arising from neurological injuries sustained during labour and birth. Liability and causation had been admitted, judgment had been entered, and interim damages had been paid. The proceedings were stayed while the extent of her disabilities became clearer.

The hearing concerned approval of a proposed settlement comprising a lump sum and index-linked periodical payments for lifelong care. The court also considered applications for anonymity and for the hearing to proceed remotely. The central issue was whether the settlement was in the claimant’s best interests.

1. Anonymity. The court made the requested anonymity order. Applying the principles articulated in X v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust [2015] 1 WLR 3647, anonymity was necessary and appropriate to protect the claimant and her family and to avoid uncertainty about what could be reported.
2. Remote hearing. The hearing was properly conducted remotely. The arrangement was necessary and justified in the circumstances of the pandemic, eliminated travel and courtroom risks, caused no prejudice to any party, and preserved open justice through publication of the case and hearing details.
3. Settlement approval. The claimant had severe lifelong disabilities, lacked capacity and required full-time care. The proposed award comprised a £5.4 million lump sum, subject to specified deductions, together with index-linked periodical payments increasing over time. The structure provided sufficient funding for her care throughout her life and was sensible from her perspective.
4. The settlement was therefore in the claimant’s best interests. The court approved it and directed that an order in the proposed form be made.