SSA & Anor v Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust

When approving a settlement of a child’s damages claim, the court must decide whether the proposed terms are in the child’s best interests. The court may approve a substantial lump sum and periodical payments where the evidence provides sufficient information to assess the settlement’s suitability and adequacy, including the claimant’s long-term care needs and the advantages of periodical payments. A remote hearing is appropriate where it causes no prejudice, eliminates attendance risks and preserves open justice. An anonymity order may be made to protect a child and family in accordance with the principles explained in X v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 96.

The first claimant, a seven-year-old child with permanent brain injury and complex lifelong care needs, brought a clinical negligence claim against the defendant NHS foundation trust. Liability, including causation, had been admitted. The court was asked to approve a proposed full-liability settlement comprising a lump sum, index-linked periodical payments and deductions for interim payments, recoveries and the parents’ past losses.

The second claimant was the child’s mother and litigation friend. Her personal injury claim had already been settled and did not require approval. The central issue was whether the proposed settlement was in the first claimant’s best interests.

1. The court approved the proposed settlement because the detailed legal opinion, financial report and other papers supplied sufficient information to assess the award. The settlement was sensible from the claimant’s perspective and adequately addressed his complex needs throughout life.
2. The structure of the award was material to that conclusion. The lump sum was accompanied by substantial index-linked periodical payments, which would provide continuing funding for care and were particularly important in this case. The court also approved the proposed deductions and the payment held on trust for the parents for gratuitous care and other past losses.
3. The court was satisfied that no further report was necessary. A deputy had been appointed, and the order was made in the proposed form.
4. The remote Microsoft Teams hearing was necessary and appropriate during the pandemic. It caused no prejudice, removed travel and courtroom attendance risks, and preserved open justice because the hearing and an observation email address had been published in the court’s cause list.
5. An anonymity order was made without objection, applying the principles explained in X v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 96 [2015] 1 WLR 3647, to protect the child and his family.