Dunhill (a protected party by her litigation friend Tasker) (Respondent) v Burgin (Appellant); Dunhill (a protected party by her litigation friend Tasker) (Respondent) v Burgin (Appellant) (No 2) – Supreme Court

Dunhill (a protected party by her litigation friend Tasker) (Respondent) v Burgin (Appellant); Dunhill (a protected party by her litigation friend Tasker) (Respondent) v Burgin (Appellant) (No 2) [2014] UKSC 18

Supreme Court, 12th March 2014

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Dunhill v Burgin (Nos 1 and 2) – WLR Daily

Dunhill v Burgin (Nos 1 and 2): [2014] UKSC 18;  [2014] WLR (D)  122

‘The test of capacity to conduct proceedings for the purpose of CPR Pt 21 was the capacity to conduct the claim or cause of action which the claimant in fact had, rather than the claim as formulated by her lawyers. A consent order based on the settlement of a claim by a claimant who lacked capacity and did not have a litigation friend was not valid even though the claimant was legally represented.’

WLR Daily, 12th March 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Supreme Court places protection of vulnerable parties ahead of need for finality in litigation – Litigation Futures

‘The policy underlying the Civil Procedure Rules is that protected parties need protection not only from themselves but also from their legal advisers, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 13th March 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com