“No settlement, compromise or payment….shall be valid….without the approval of the court” CPR 21.10
The rules surrounding children and protected parties is generally well known and set out in CPR 21 and 21PD. It is worth remembering that reasons given for having the Courts approval is:
The Courts undertake thousands of infant approval hearings up and down the country each year, most conducted before the District Bench, and yet there is little guidance on how these cases are to be conducted, who is to attend, how monies are to be invested and what expenses incurred by the Litigation Friend can properly be deduced from the infant’s damages. These issues are explored, with some suggestions as to what steps ought to be taken. It is, in the main, aimed at the lower value claims.
The Litigation Friend
A child MUST have a Litigation Friend to conduct proceedings [21.2(2)] and it follows that any steps taken without one have no effect – 21.3(4). A parties’ ability to withdraw an agreement before approval is well recognised – see Drinkall v Whitwood  EWCA Civ 1547
The process for appointing a Litigation Friend can be performed with or without a court order, with the essential ingredients being that the Litigation Friend:-
A certificate of suitability is required confirming the above. Any application to appoint a Litigation Friend is to be supported by evidence and it must be served on all parties to the proceedings – 21.5(4)
The Application for Approval
It is often overlooked that it is not just infant settlements that require court approval. Where interim payments have been agreed by the parties the courts approval is also required. (usually such an application is considered on the papers and doesn’t require a court hearing). The vast majority of infant approval hearings are before the District bench and arise before proceedings have begun. In such circumstances CPR 21.10(2) requires the Claimant to issue a Part 8 Claim which must request the matter be listed for a court approval hearing. It must also include the following [21 PD.5.1]
Whilst District Judges (including Deputies) or Masters will hear such applications, where the child is also a protected party the matter will “normally” be heard by a Designated Civil Judge (or nominee) or a Master – 21PD.6.5
The Approval Hearing – a pre-hearing checklist
Curiously, the CPR is silent on who should attend the approval hearing and accordingly local guidelines have developed. Most would require the following:-
At the hearing the court will want to hear from the Litigation Friend and ensure that the medical prognosis has been achieved, to ask about investment and to see any scars of the child. A common error is the lack of any evidence from the defendant about the agreed sum for costs.
Following guidance in the Court of Appeal decision in JXMX v Dartford & Gravesham NHS Trust  EWCA Civ 96, the court is required to list the case in public with the default position being that the Judge should make an anonymity order for the protection of the Claimant and his/her family unless satisfied after hearing argument that it is not necessary to do so. In the vast majority of infant approval hearings before the District Judge this issue never arises, but it is suggested that the Judge might add a recital to the order indicating that an anonymity order is considered unnecessary.
It might also be thought that because the hearing is in public then the rights of audience exemption given to “solicitor agents” (to conduct matters in chambers) would not apply.
This is an area that is frequently over looked by practitioners and all too often the parties attend the hearing automatically assuming that all monies will be invested in the Court Funds Office and a draft order is accordingly produced. The Court has a duty under Pt 21.11 to give directions as to how the monies are to be dealt with and it “will consider the general aims to be achieved” (21PD.9.2). There is a wide judicial discretion.
His Honour Judge Platt at Romford County Court in GW V BW (22.7.11) stressed the need for Judges AND practitioners to think about what is the best investment for the child and not blindly to place monies into the CFO Special Account where the rate is a woeful 0.5%. He pointed out that better rates could be achieved with Child ISA or Child Trust Fund or similar accounts where the monies are protected until the child is 18.
With sums under £5000 it is strongly recommended that the solicitor enquire of the Litigation Friend, well before the hearing, as to the existence of such accounts and if necessary for the Litigation Friend to consider opening one for the child before the approval hearing. This will ensure that at the hearing the draft order can allow for the monies to be paid by the defendant to the claimant’s solicitors who will then pay it directly into the specified child account.
Expenses of the Litigation Friend
This is very much a hot topic and arises mainly where an ATE insurance policy has been taken out by the Litigation Friend (usually on legal advice) and/or where he/she has entered into a CFA and seeks to recover the success fee being charged by the solicitor.
The problem has arisen since the introduction of fixed success fees from 1st April 2013 under LASPO with a maximum cap of 25% of the damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity and past losses [s.44(2) LASPO]. The cap includes both the ATE and any success fee.
Whilst CPR 21.12(1) clearly provides for the expense/costs of a Litigation Friend to be recoverable from the child’s damages, it is qualified by the requirement that these have been both reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount.
The recent decisions of DJ Lumb in Birmingham County Court in A v Royal Mail Group  EW Misc B24 (CC) and the subsequent cost decision on 18.9.15, reflect the concerns that the judiciary have over claims for ATE premiums and success fees being deducted from children’s damages.
In relation to the recovery of an ATE premium, the Litigation Friend must provide details and explain why it was necessary [21PD.11.2]. Applying the 21.12(1) criteria, the court will needed considerable persuasion that such a policy was necessary, especially with the advent of Qualified One Way Costs Shifting.
Where the Litigation Friend is seeking to recover any success fee being sought by the solicitor, and damages are less then £25,000, then under 21 PD.11.3, the court must be provided with:-
As DJ Lumb pointed out, “Simply because an ill-informed Litigation Friend signs up to a CFA with a success fee of 100% does not mean that a 100% success fee is a reasonable expense for CPR 21.12.”
Since most claims will involve an innocent child passenger, it is difficult to see what litigation risks arise. Many courts are awarding no more than 10% of the General damages agreed, on the basis that this was the increase recommended in the Jackson reforms (to compensate for the irrecoverable expense of a success fee) and subsequently adopted by the Court of Appeal in Simmons v Castle
The procedure of approving infant settlements has been in existence for a very long time and is recognised as an important practice for protecting the most vulnerable. It is regrettable therefore that they are often poorly prepared and listed for too short a period. The lack of any guidance within the CPR can result in Litigation Friends and/or infants not attending and with little or no consideration having been given beforehand to investment choices. A simple standard check-list that includes investment issues needs to be adopted by those conducting this litigation. Advocates need to be properly briefed and thought given to the draft order. Whether and what costs/expense can be deducted would benefit from guidance from a senior court.
Is this something you would like more information on?Contact us