PI Practitioner, June 2020
16/06/20. Each issue a particular topic is highlighted, citing some of the useful cases and other materials in that area. You can also receive these for free by registering for our PI Brief Update newsletter. Just select "Free Newsletter" from the menu at the top of this page and fill in your email address.
DMR (by her litigation friend, LEW) v IX & ORS [2020] EWCA Civ 377
Can a seven-figure settlement for future care and losses be challenged where a claimant passes away only days after court approval? Where a settlement is reached in a case where the parties have capacity and are adults, the answer would clearly be 'No'. The only way to challenge such a consent order would be to set aside the underlying contract on well-established principles such as misrepresentation, mistake or frustration. But what about the situation where one of the parties is a minor or lacks capacity and the settlement agreement requires, and is given, approval by the court of first instance (pursuant to CPR Part 21)? Can an appellate court revoke the lower court's approval and thereby set aside the entire compromise where a fundamental assumption on which the settlement was based has been invalidated by subsequent events? This was the issue considered by the Court of Appeal in the above case when deciding to grant permission to appeal a final consent order which had been approved by the High Court in October 2018.
The Claimant was a pillion passenger on a motorcycle and suffered catastrophic injuries when it collided with a dog which had got loose. Proceedings were brought against the driver of the motorcycle, who was the Claimant's partner at the time of the accident. The Motor Insurers' Bureau ("MIB") was added as a Second Defendant, as the First Defendant did not have valid insurance. The Third Defendant was the firm which owned the dog that had been involved in the accident. Neither the First nor the Third Defendant played any active part in the proceedings. In March...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/EmiliaU
![Appeal judge rules that credit hire company has no costs liability following a finding of fundamental dishonesty in personal injury case: RSA v. Fastrack Solutions Limited [2023] 4 WLUK 92 - David Bowden, Erimus Chambers](/content/images/resized/images/stories/carkeys_72_72.jpg)
