Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

LZL (A Protected Party) v HYC & Anor

[2024] EWHC 542 (KB)
A woman injured in a car accident needs someone to help her with her court case. Her mother-in-law is helping, but there are worries about a conflict of interest. The judge gave her mother-in-law another chance, but if she doesn't do what the judge said, someone else will take over.

Key Facts

  • Claimant (LZL), a protected party due to a traumatic brain injury sustained in a car accident, requires a litigation friend.
  • Current litigation friend is Ms HXS, the claimant's mother-in-law and the first defendant's mother.
  • A £100,000 interim payment has been made, intended for the claimant's relocation.
  • The Judge ordered an application to the Court of Protection (COP) for a Professional Deputy, which the claimant and Ms HXS oppose.
  • Concerns exist regarding conflict of interest due to Ms HXS's relationship with the first defendant and the LPOAs.
  • The claimant's solicitor was changed due to loss of confidence.

Legal Principles

A protected person must have a litigation friend.

CPR 21.2(1)

Requirements for acting as a litigation friend: (a) competency, (b) no adverse interest, (c) undertaking to pay costs.

CPR 21.4(3)

The court can direct a person not to act, terminate appointment, or appoint a new litigation friend.

CPR 21.7

A litigation friend's interest that is not adverse to the protected party does not automatically disqualify them, provided their interest does not affect their ability to act fairly and competently.

White Book, para 21.4.1

Outcomes

Ms HXS is given another chance to act as litigation friend.

While Ms HXS has prevaricated and the Judge's order was breached, positive developments have occurred, such as a new solicitor and Ms HXS providing necessary documents. Ms HXS's close relationship with the claimant is seen as advantageous for facilitating medical appointments and compliance with the Court Order. The court believes that giving her another chance is in the claimant's best interest, provided the COP application is made promptly.

If the application to the COP is not made within 14 days, the Official Solicitor will replace Ms HXS.

Failure to promptly make the COP application demonstrates a lack of competence and compliance with court orders, thus necessitating a change in litigation friend.

The claimant's application to extend time for compliance with the Judge's Order is granted.

It is considered fair and just given the circumstances.

The claim will be listed for a hearing in 6 months to review progress and assess Ms HXS's suitability as litigation friend (assuming the COP application is made).

This is to ensure the litigation proceeds smoothly and cost-effectively.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.