DAH v Sally Kenny
[2023] EWHC 1759 (KB)
GJC v Stephen John Walker
2 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 182 (KB)
High Court
A young man severely injured in a car accident received a £4.175 million settlement, approved by the court to ensure his best interests were served. The court also kept his identity secret to protect his privacy.
Key Facts
- •GJC (a protected party), sustained a severe brain injury in a road traffic accident five years prior.
- •Defendant admitted liability; the case proceeded to determine damages.
- •Parties reached a compromise settlement at a Joint Settlement Meeting (JSM).
- •Claimant is 23 years old and has an anonymity order in place.
- •Settlement involves a gross lump sum of £4.75 million, with a net lump sum of £4,175,000 after interim payments.
Legal Principles
Court approval is required for settlements involving protected parties (CPR 21.10(1)).
CPR 21.10(1)
Approval hearings consider the protected party's best interests and the overriding objective. They involve a 'propriety check' on the settlement.
Dunhill v Burgin [2014] UKSC 18
Even in approval hearings, fundamental rights under the European Convention on Human Rights apply, balancing open justice with privacy rights.
Thoma v Luxembourg [2001] ECHR 240
A compromise is not binding until court approval is obtained.
Drinkall v Whitwood [2003] EWCA Civ 1547; Dietz v Lennig Chemicals Ltd [1969] 1 A.C. 170
Anonymity orders can be granted to protect a claimant's privacy, particularly in personal injury cases involving vulnerable individuals.
JX MX v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 96
Outcomes
The court approved the settlement of £4,175,000.
The court found the settlement to be in the claimant's best interests, considering the level, structure, and expert advice provided. A thorough 'propriety check' was performed.
Anonymity order granted for the claimant.
The claimant's Article 8 ECHR right to privacy outweighed the Article 10 rights of the press and public.