GJC v Stephen John Walker

Settlement of a claim by or on behalf of a protected party requires court approval. The court must conduct an external check on the propriety of the settlement, exercising judgment in accordance with the interests of justice, the protected person’s best interests and the overriding objective. It must assess both the settlement amount and its structure. A compromise is not binding until approved by court order. In an approval hearing, the court should have the claimant’s legal advice on the merits and any relevant financial advice. Anonymity may be ordered where the claimant’s Article 8 rights significantly outweigh the Article 10 rights of the press and public, consistently with open justice.

The claimant, a protected party, suffered a severe brain injury in a road traffic accident caused by the defendant. Liability was admitted and judgment was entered for the claimant, leaving quantum to be determined at trial.

Following a joint settlement meeting, the parties agreed a net lump-sum settlement of £4,175,000. The claimant applied for approval under the court’s protective and inherent jurisdiction. The central issue was whether the settlement was in the claimant’s best interests and should be approved.

1. Anonymity. Approval hearings engage Convention rights. Although open justice and the press’s public-watchdog function are important, the claimant’s Article 8 privacy rights significantly outweighed the Article 10 rights of the press and public. An anonymity order was therefore appropriate under JX MX v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 96, and the public interest in justice could be met without identifying the claimant.
2. Approval jurisdiction. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 21 and rule 21.10(1), a settlement by or on behalf of a protected party is invalid insofar as it relates to that claim unless approved by the court. The purpose of approval is to impose an external check on the propriety of the settlement, as explained in Dunhill v Burgin [2014] UKSC 18.
3. The court must exercise judgment in the interests of justice and the protected person’s best interests, while having regard to the overriding objective. It should consider the merits advice of the claimant’s legal representatives, including the recoverable loss, litigation risks, evidential strengths and weaknesses, and any financial advice relevant to the settlement structure.
4. A compromise is not binding until approved by order of the court: Drinkall v Whitwood [2003] EWCA Civ 1547, applying Dietz v Lennig Chemicals Ltd [1969] 1 A.C. 170.
5. The proposed settlement comprised a gross lump sum of £4.75 million, less interim payments of £575,000. Having considered the evidence, legal advice and independent financial advice, the court found that both the level and structure of the settlement were sensible and in the claimant’s best interests. The settlement was approved under rule 21.10.

Not stated in the judgment.