XX v Barts Health Trust
[2023] EWHC 963 (KB)
CTQ v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
23 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2975 (KB)
High Court
A woman suffered brain damage after giving birth due to hospital negligence. The hospital settled, but the court had to approve because of concerns about the woman's ability to manage the money. The court approved the settlement, kept her name secret to protect her and her family, and confirmed that the settlement was in her best interest. This ensures a fair result without causing more stress or delaying things further.
Key Facts
- •Clinical negligence claim against King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust.
- •Claimant suffered cardiac arrest and brain damage after childbirth due to alleged failure to administer intravenous fluids during spinal anaesthesia.
- •Claimant suffers from persisting cognitive deficits.
- •Application for court approval of settlement, raising issues of claimant's anonymity and capacity.
- •No formal finding of lack of capacity, but concerns exist regarding claimant's cognitive functioning.
- •Settlement includes a £2,500,000 lump sum and periodical payments.
- •Defendant admitted liability but not the extent of injuries.
Legal Principles
Open justice vs. protection of claimant's Article 8 rights (privacy) and those of her family.
JXMX v Dartford & Gravesham NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 96
Court's inherent jurisdiction to approve settlements where there is a potential concern about a claimant's capacity.
Coles v Perfect [2013] EWHC 1955 (QB), Grimshaw v Hudson [2021] EWHC 425 (QB)
Approval of settlements for protected parties under CPR 21.10(1) to ensure propriety.
Dunhill v Burgin [2014] UKSC 18
Court's inherent jurisdiction to act in the best interests of justice and the claimant, particularly vulnerable individuals.
Blackstone's Commentaries
Outcomes
Anonymity order granted for the claimant (CTQ) and her family.
Concerns about claimant's capacity and protection of her daughter.
Court approved the settlement under its inherent jurisdiction.
Real and credible doubt remained about the claimant's capacity to manage the substantial award; a separate capacity trial deemed unnecessary and disproportionate.
Settlement approved as being in the claimant's best interests.
Settlement deemed sensible and structured appropriately to meet the claimant's lifetime needs; equivalent to a propriety check for a protected party.