Page values for "Hinduja v Hinduja (2020) EWHC 1533 (Ch)"

"_pageData" values

_creationDate2020-06-25 9:33:31 PM
_modificationDate2020-06-25 9:33:31 PM
_creatorJonathan
_categoriesCases 2020_cases Litigation_capacity_cases Litigation_friend_cases Judgment_available_on_Bailii
_isRedirectNo
_pageNameOrRedirectHinduja v Hinduja (2020) EWHC 1533 (Ch)

"News" values

Which_tableCases
RSS_title
RSS_description
RSS_pubdate2020-06-25 9:31:01 PM

"Cases" values

Sentence

Protected party - litigation friend

Summary

(1) Medical evidence on capacity to conduct proceedings is not required under the CPR, and in this case to require it would not be necessary or in accordance with the overriding objective. The court decided that SP was a protected party. (2) The defendants argued that the proposed litigation friend failed both limbs of the relevant test (ability fairly and competently to conduct proceedings and having no adverse interest). Having considered the tests (including noting that "[w]hether the existence of a financial interest on the part of the litigation friend should debar [her] from acting will depend on the nature of the interest, and whether it is in fact adverse or whether it otherwise prevents the litigation friend conducting the proceedings fairly and competently on the protected party's behalf") the court made the appointment sought.

Detail
SubjectLitigation capacity cases Litigation friend cases
Judicial_history
Judicial_history_first_page
Date2020-06-23
JudgesFalk
PartiesSrichand Parmanand Hinduja Gopichand Parmanand Hinduja Prakash Parmanand Hinduja Ashok Parmanand Hinduja
CourtHigh Court (Chancery Division)
NCN[2020] EWHC 1533 (Ch)
MHLR
ICLR
Essex
Essex_issue
Essex_page
Other_citations
Cites
External_links
Judgment

"Cases__NEXT" values

Sentence

Protected party - litigation friend

Summary

(1) Medical evidence on capacity to conduct proceedings is not required under the CPR, and in this case to require it would not be necessary or in accordance with the overriding objective. The court decided that SP was a protected party. (2) The defendants argued that the proposed litigation friend failed both limbs of the relevant test (ability fairly and competently to conduct proceedings and having no adverse interest). Having considered the tests (including noting that "[w]hether the existence of a financial interest on the part of the litigation friend should debar [her] from acting will depend on the nature of the interest, and whether it is in fact adverse or whether it otherwise prevents the litigation friend conducting the proceedings fairly and competently on the protected party's behalf") the court made the appointment sought.

Detail
SubjectLitigation capacity cases Litigation friend cases
Judicial_history
Judicial_history_first_page
Date2020-06-23
JudgesFalk
PartiesSrichand Parmanand Hinduja Gopichand Parmanand Hinduja Prakash Parmanand Hinduja Ashok Parmanand Hinduja
CourtHigh Court (Chancery Division)
NCN[2020] EWHC 1533 (Ch)
MHLR
ICLR
Essex
Essex_issue
Essex_page
Other_citations
Cites
External_links
Judgment