Dunhill v Burgin [2011] EWHC 464 (QB)

The claimant had settled a PI claim on unfavourable terms and now sought to have the consent order declared void for want of capacity; this judgment involves a consideration of litigation capacity. (1) In considering the issue of capacity historically, rather than prospectively, the court should confine itself to examining the decisions actually required of the claimant and should not expand its consideration to hypothetical circumstances (i.e. had she been advised differently). (2) On the facts, the presumption that she had capacity to enter into the agreement had not been rebutted. [Caution.]

Related judgments


Before: Silber J

Hearing: 9/2/11 to 11/2/22

Judgment: 7/3/11

Marc Willems (instructed by Potter Rees Solicitors of Manchester) for the Claimant

James Rowley QC (instructed by Keoghs LLP of Bolton) for the Defendant

Further written submissions by the claimant served on 18 February 2011


[2011] All ER (D) 70 (Mar)

External link