View source for Dunhill v Burgin (2012) EWHC 3163 (QB), (2012) MHLO 115

''The 'compromise rule' in the Civil Procedure Rules provides that where a claim is made by or on behalf of a party who lacks capacity to conduct the proceedings (a child or protected party), no settlement of that claim shall be valid without the approval of the court. (1) The rule applies to a claim settled at the door of the court where at the time of the settlement the claimant was not known to lack capacity. (2) The claimant was a protected party ('a party, or an intended party, who lacks capacity to conduct the proceedings') and the Court of Appeal had decided that she lacked capacity to settle her claim. (3) The compromise in this case was invalid; the judgment based on it must be set aside, and the substantive claim should proceed to a trial on the merits. (4) The judge granted a certificate under s12 [[Administration of Justice Act 1969]] to enable an application to be made to the Supreme Court for permission to bring a 'leapfrog' appeal from this decision.'' [Detailed summary available.]

==Related judgments==
*[[Dunhill v Burgin (2012) EWHC 3163 (QB), (2012) MHLO 115]]
*[[Dunhill v Burgin (2012) EWCA Civ 397, (2012) MHLO 33]]
**[[Dunhill v Burgin (2011) EWHC 464 (QB)]]

==ICLR==
{{ICLR|Dunhill v Burgin (2012) EWHC 3163 (QB), (2012) MHLO 115}}

==External link==
{{#bailii:(2012) EWHC 3163 (QB)}}

[http://cases.iclr.co.uk/Subscr/search.aspx?docID=WLRD2012-321 ICLR]

[[Category:Other capacity cases]]
[[Category:Detailed summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]