Julian Cole v The Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police

Where a claimant lacks capacity and litigation has settled, the court must scrutinise the proposed settlement and approve it only if satisfied that it is justified in the claimant’s interests. The court may also approve an agreed costs arrangement reflecting the parties’ competing arguments, including a discounted recovery for costs incurred after a delayed acceptance of a settlement offer.

The claimant, who had sustained catastrophic injuries during an incident involving police officers, applied for approval of a settlement with the defendant chief constable. Liability had not been admitted. Proceedings had been served in February 2021, and the defendant had made a Part 36 offer of £1,200,000. The offer was rejected initially but accepted in October 2023 after further investigation into the claimant’s long-term care needs. The parties also agreed that the claimant’s costs for the period between the offer and acceptance would be subject to a 15% discount. The issue was whether the settlement and costs agreement should be approved.

1. The application was granted and the settlement in the sum of £1,200,000 was approved. The court accepted the rationale for accepting the offer, having regard to the extensive investigation into quantum and the uncertainty over the appropriate long-term placement and care arrangements.
2. The court was satisfied that the settlement was appropriate despite the absence of an admission of liability. The claimant had suffered severe cervical and spinal cord injuries followed by a hypoxic brain injury and remained in a minimally conscious state.
3. The agreed costs arrangement was also approved. Although the claimant was to receive costs for the period between the making and acceptance of the offer, those costs were subject to a 15% discount because approximately two and a half years had elapsed before acceptance. The agreement was regarded as properly reflecting the arguments that would have been advanced had the issue been contested.
4. The settlement brought the litigation to an end but did not resolve the claimant’s continuing care needs or the wider difficulties faced by his family.