Hinduja v Hinduja (2020) EWHC 1533 (Ch): Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 11:55, 8 October 2021

Protected party - litigation friend (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.

Essex search

This case's neutral citation number appears in the following newsletters:

39 Essex Chambers, 'Mental Capacity Report' (issue 113, May 2021)

CASES DATABASE

Full judgment: BAILII

Subject(s):

Litigation capacity cases🔍
Litigation friend cases🔍

Date: 23/6/20🔍

Court: High Court (Chancery Division)🔍

Judge(s):

Falk🔍

Parties:

Srichand Parmanand Hinduja🔍
Gopichand Parmanand Hinduja🔍
Prakash Parmanand Hinduja🔍
Ashok Parmanand Hinduja🔍

Citation number(s):

[2020] EWHC 1533 (Ch)^B

What links here:

No pages link to this page

Published: 25/6/20 21:33

Cached: 2025-06-14 13:11:29

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 |Parties=Srichand Parmanand Hinduja, Gopichand Parmanand Hinduja, Prakash Parmanand Hinduja, Ashok Parmanand Hinduja
 |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.''
+|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.
 |Subject=Litigation capacity cases, Litigation friend cases
 |News=Yes
 |RSS pubdate=2020/06/25 09:31:01 PM
 }}