Tags

, , ,

For those of you who don’t know, I have an interest in Court of Protection/capacity matters – both professional and personal.

The Supreme Court handed down its decision in the matter of Dunhill (a protected party by her litigation friend Tasker)(Respondent) v Burgin (Appellant).

It concerns CPR Part 21 and the circumstances when a Court needs to approve a settlement reached by or on behalf of a protected party (person lacking capacity). Its an interesting read and an important decision.

I did have a chortle at Lady Hale’s conclusion that:

the policy underlying the Civil Procedure Rules is clear: that children and protected parties require and deserve protections, not only from themselves but also from their legal advisors

Its arguable that all litigants do!

You can access a copy of the judgment here