A signed and sealed consent order settling a personal injury claim brought by a mentally incapacitated claimant was not binding, the Supreme Court unanimously decided.
The order had been agreed between the parties and sealed by the court, although without a formal court approval of the suitability of terms of settlement. The claimant, whose claim had been compromised by agreement but at a substantial undervalue, sought to have it set aside on the grounds that she did not have the capacity to conduct the claim.
Delivering judgment in Dunhill v Burgin  UKSC 18, Lady Hale said: “The policy underlying the Civil Procedure Rules is clear: that children and protected parties require and deserve protection, not only from themselves but also from their legal advisers.”
Click the link for judgment: Dunhill -v- Burgin – consent order not binding