James William Wagstaff v William Murison

At an approval hearing for a protected party, the court must exercise judgment and impose an external check on the propriety of the proposed settlement. Approval depends on whether the settlement is in the protected person’s best interests, having regard to the interests of justice and the overriding objective. Where periodical payments are proposed, the court must assess whether the structure best meets the claimant’s needs in all the circumstances, including the relevant practice-direction factors and the parties’ preferences.

The claimant, a protected party aged 93, brought a personal injury claim after being struck by the defendant’s vehicle. Liability was admitted, judgment was entered, and the dispute proceeded solely on quantum. Shortly before the scheduled trial, the parties accepted a Part 36 offer providing for a lump sum, periodical payments for life and deductions for interim payments.

The court was asked to approve the compromise under CPR 21.10, together with payment of an after-the-event insurance premium from the damages and a further interim payment on account of costs. The central issue was whether the proposed settlement structure was in the claimant’s best interests.

1. Settlement approval. The court approved the compromise under CPR 21.10. Approval requires an evaluative judgment. The court must act in the interests of justice and in the best interests of the protected person, while having regard to the overriding objective. The approval hearing provides an external check on the propriety of the settlement, following Dunhill v Burgin [2014] UKSC 18 at [20].
2. Assessment of the settlement. The claimant’s representatives provided detailed advice addressing the recoverable loss, litigation risks, evidential strengths and weaknesses, and the claimant’s financial needs. The court considered the expert evidence and accepted the proposed structure of a net lump sum together with annual periodical payments for the remainder of the claimant’s life as being in his best interests.
3. Periodical payments. Under CPR 41.7, the court had to consider all the circumstances and the form of award that best met the claimant’s needs. The relevant considerations included the scale of the annual payments and the preferences of both parties, together with the balance between capital flexibility and the risk that the claimant might live beyond the predicted life expectancy.
4. The court approved payment of £2,632 from the damages for the after-the-event insurance premium under CPR 46.4(2)(b)(ii) and CPR 46.4(3). The defendant’s insurer was ordered to make a further interim payment on account of costs of £100,000, with interest on costs beginning 21 days after service of a costs breakdown or draft bill.

This was a first-instance approval hearing. Liability had been admitted and judgment had previously been entered by Master Gidden on 15 November 2022. The High Court approved the subsequent compromise of quantum.