FLR v Dr Shanthi Chandran

Approval of a settlement for a child or protected party requires an independent judicial check on its propriety. The court must decide whether the settlement serves the protected person’s best interests, having regard to justice and the overriding objective. The court should receive informed advice from the claimant’s representatives addressing recoverable loss, litigation risks, evidential strengths and weaknesses. An anonymity order may be made where the claimant’s privacy and private-life interests under Article 8 outweigh the Article 10 rights of the press and public, while recognising the importance of open justice.

The claimant sustained serious head and psychological injuries after being struck by a car aged 12. Following a contested trial, liability was apportioned 60 per cent to the defendant and 40 per cent to the claimant. The liability judgment was reported as [2023] EWHC 1671 (KB).

The claimant was 17 when the damages settlement was reached. The court was asked to approve a net lump-sum settlement of £135,000 under its inherent jurisdiction and CPR 21.10. The central issue was whether the proposed settlement was in the claimant’s best interests.

1. The court approved the settlement. A gross lump sum of £225,000 was reduced by £90,000 to reflect the 60/40 liability apportionment, producing a net payment of £135,000.
2. Approval of a settlement involving a child engages judicial judgment. The court must act in the interests of justice and the protected person’s best interests, with regard to the overriding objective. The purpose of the approval hearing is to impose an external check on the propriety of the settlement, applying the approach stated in Dunhill v Burgin [2014] UKSC 18 at [20].
3. The court should be provided with the claimant’s legal representatives’ opinion on the merits of the compromise. That advice should assess the recoverable loss, the risks and uncertainties of litigation, and the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence.
4. Having considered the legal advice, expert evidence and proposed settlement structure, the court was satisfied that it had conducted the required propriety check and that the settlement was in the claimant’s best interests. It therefore approved the settlement under CPR 21.10.
5. The court also maintained anonymity. Although open justice and the press’s public-watchdog function were important, the claimant’s Article 8 privacy rights significantly outweighed the Article 10 rights of the press and public. The order was made in accordance with JX MX v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 96, with the balance informed by Thoma v Luxembourg [2001] ECHR 240 at [5].

This was a first-instance approval decision. The court noted that liability had previously been determined after a contested trial in the same proceedings, in the judgment reported as [2023] EWHC 1671 (KB).