GJC v Stephen John Walker
[2024] EWHC 182 (KB)
ZSY v AAA
24 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2977 (KB)
High Court
A seriously injured person (ZSY) settled their accident claim for a large amount of money. Because the injured person needed a guardian to make decisions, the judge had to approve the settlement, which they did. The judge made sure that the settlement amount was fair and would help the person in the future. The judge also kept the injured person’s identity secret to protect their privacy.
Key Facts
- •Personal injury claim involving a protected party (ZSY) who suffered severe injuries (traumatic brain injury and skull fracture) in a road traffic accident.
- •Liability apportioned at 57.5/42.5% in claimant's favour (Judgment approved April 1, 2020).
- •Parties reached a settlement agreement at a Joint Settlement Meeting on September 22, 2023.
- •Claimant is a Latvian national residing in Latvia.
- •Anonymity order in place for both claimant and defendant to prevent jigsaw identification.
- •Settlement includes a £1,500,000 gross lump sum, periodical payments of £16,000 per annum (index-linked in Euros), less interim payments of £330,000, resulting in a net lump sum of £1,170,000 (approximately £2 million capitalised value).
Legal Principles
Court approval required for settlements involving protected parties under CPR 21.2(1) and 21.10(1).
CPR 21.2(1), CPR 21.10(1)
Court must act in the best interests of the protected party and have regard to the overriding objective.
Dunhill v Burgin [2014] UKSC 18 at [20]
In approving settlements, the court considers the propriety of the settlement and the best interests of the protected party.
Dunhill v Burgin [2014] UKSC 18 at [20]
When periodical payments are involved, the court considers the appropriateness of the payment structure, including indexation, in line with CPR 41.7 and relevant factors as outlined in Practice Direction 41BD.
CPR 41.7, Practice Direction 41BD
Criteria for assessing appropriateness of indexation in periodical payments are outlined in Thompstone v Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust [2008] EWCA Civ 5 and RH (A Patient) v United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust [2007] LS Law Med 535.
Thompstone v Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust [2008] EWCA Civ 5, RH (A Patient) v United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust [2007] LS Law Med 535
Balancing Article 8 ECHR (right to privacy) and Article 10 ECHR (freedom of expression) in relation to anonymity orders.
Thoma v Luxembourg [2001] ECHR 240 at [5]
Outcomes
The court approved the settlement.
The court found the settlement, including its structure and indexation method, to be in the claimant's best interests.