High Court Rules on Costs in Henderson v. Henderson Case: Nicola Bayless & Ors v Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Introduction

In the recent High Court case of Nicola Bayless & Ors v Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, significant issues were brought to the forefront regarding the proper order of costs upon the withdrawal of an application to strike out a claim. The case also analyzed matters related to the practice of settling dependency claims on behalf of children, the construction of a settlement agreement, and the application of the principles derived from Henderson v. Henderson. This article will dissect the case, focusing on these formidable legal principles and their bearing on the outcome.

Key Facts

The case circulates around the estate and dependents of the late Mr. Stephen Bayless, who tragically died due to a misdiagnosis. His widow, Mrs. Nicola Bayless, originally filed a claim alongside their two children for dependency under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, which resulted in a disputed settlement in 2019. Years later, Mrs. Bayless and her children filed a new claim for damages as secondary victims for psychiatric injury caused by witnessing Mr. Bayless’s death, leading to the Trust’s strike-out application based on a purported settlement and abuse of process.

Legal Principles

Rule in Henderson v. Henderson

The rule in Henderson v. Henderson (1843) asserts that a party is obliged to bring forward all its claims in one action, to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and potential abuse of process. However, the bar is set high to strike out a subsequent claim as it must be shown to be manifestly unfair or oppressive. In the present case, the Trust asserted that Mrs. Bayless’s psychiatric injury claim should be struck out either because it had been settled or as an abuse of process in line with this rule.

Settlement Approval for Minors

Under rule 21.10 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, any settlement involving minors must be approved by the court to be considered binding. This principle is pivotal in ensuring the protection of minors’ interests in litigation. The lack of such approval in the 2019 settlement meant the previously accepted Part 36 offer could not legally settle the claims.

Part 36 Offers

Part 36 of the CPR offers a formal process for settlements where an offer, if accepted, can end the dispute. However, the case highlights that accepting a Part 36 offer does not always guarantee a settlement, particularly if procedural requirements such as court approval for minors are not met.

Outcomes

Upon realizing the omission of court approval for the initial settlement, the Trust withdrew its application to strike out the new claim. As a consequence, the court had to determine the appropriate order for costs associated with the withdrawn application. Despite the Trust’s argument that no order as to the costs should be made given the circumstances and their assertions of Mrs. Bayless’s solicitors’ negligence, the court ruled that the Trust must bear the costs. The ruling was made on the basis that the Trust’s application should have been recognized by them as untenable upon due diligence and thus was deemed an ill-conceived endeavor that incurred unnecessary costs for Mrs. Bayless.

Conclusion

The case of Nicola Bayless & Ors v Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust establishes the significance of ensuring procedural compliance when settling claims that involve children and the tenacity of the principles enshrined in Henderson v. Henderson in guarding against an abuse of process. The outcome amplifies the courts’ expectations that litigants and their legal representatives exercise thoroughness in processing claims and reiterate that parties will be held responsible for the implications of their own oversights. This decision serves as a cautionary tale to legal professionals in the UK, reinforcing the necessity for due diligence and adherence to procedural norms in litigations, especially those concerning the vulnerable.