QXB v University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust

Where a child’s damages claim is compromised, the court must determine whether the proposed settlement protects the child’s best interests. The court should consider the litigation risks, the adequacy of the proposed compensation, and how the damages will be managed and applied. Where future needs and life expectancy are uncertain, periodical payments may be appropriate, particularly when combined with a lump sum providing flexibility. The court must also be satisfied that the proposed payment source is reasonably secure.

The claimant, aged seven, pursued a clinical negligence claim arising from delayed diagnosis of pneumococcal septicaemia and meningitis during infancy. She suffered severe brain injury and quadriplegic cerebral palsy. Liability had previously been compromised in the claimant’s favour at 87.5%.

The defendant accepted the claimant’s Part 36 offer following a without prejudice meeting. The proposed settlement comprised a lump sum of £4.2 million and three stepped periodical payments, with a capitalised value of £13.4 million. The issue was whether the compromise was in the claimant’s best interests.

1. Settlement approved. The proposed compromise represented a very good outcome and was in the best interests of the child.
2. In assessing a proposed compromise, the court must act as a safeguard for the child’s interests. It should consider the litigation risks, the detailed advice available to the litigation friend, the disputed heads of loss, and the likely consequences of proceeding to an assessment of damages.
3. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 21.10(4), the court was satisfied that the parties had considered whether part of the damages should comprise periodical payments.
4. Having regard to Practice Direction 41B, periodical payment orders were appropriate because uncertainty about life expectancy created a risk of future under-compensation. The substantial lump sum provided flexibility for the claimant and her family, while the continuing payment source was reasonably secure.
5. The compromise was approved in the stated structure and terms.

Not stated in the judgment.