SGJJ v University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust

In a protected-party damages claim, the court must be satisfied that a proposed settlement is in the claimant’s best interests before approving it. A settlement may combine a lump sum with periodical payments, including indexed payments. Where the order plainly orders otherwise under CPR 41.8(1)(d), a separate recital stating that the indexation mechanism modifies or disapplies section 2(8) of the Damages Act 1996 is unnecessary. A model order should not be altered without case-specific justification. The routine inclusion of deputyship bank-account details will ordinarily be maintained where no sufficiently strong, case-specific basis exists for restricting access.

The claimant, an 11-year-old protected party, brought a birth-injury claim against the defendant NHS foundation trust. Liability and causation had previously been compromised at 67.5% of damages. Following agreement on quantum, the parties sought approval of a settlement comprising a lump sum and periodical payments for future care and case management.

The court considered whether the settlement was in the claimant’s best interests, whether the order should omit deputyship bank-account details, and whether it should contain a recital recording that the ASHE-6115 indexation mechanism modified section 2(8) of the Damages Act 1996.

1. Settlement approved. Having considered the confidential approval opinion, financial-planning report and other case materials, the court was satisfied that the proposed lump sum and periodical payments were sensible and in the protected party’s best interests. The settlement was approved and an order was made in the proposed form.
2. Deputyship account details. There was no sufficiently strong, case-specific basis for departing from the model order or restricting access to it. The court therefore maintained the established practice of including the Deputy’s account details. The concern about possible misuse of financial information was a matter worthy of wider consideration, but did not justify a special order in this case.
3. Indexation and the Damages Act 1996. The court would have preferred a recital recording that the ASHE-6115-linked mechanism operated to disapply section 2(8) pursuant to section 2(9). However, because the model order clearly ordered otherwise within the meaning of CPR 41.8(1)(d), that wording was sufficient. No additional recital was necessary.
4. Anonymity and remote hearing. Having regard to the principles in X v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust [2015] 1 WLR 3647, anonymity remained necessary. The remote hearing was necessary and justified during the pandemic, while open justice was secured through publication and an opportunity for observation.