With such a focus on the monetary outcome of a claim, have you ever stopped to think whether you should, in fact, disclose the total figure of compensation to your injured party (‘P’) where they have suffered a brain injury and lack capacity to manage their finances?
Where a brain injury has occurred (particularly a frontal lobe injury affecting impulse control, judgement, the ability to analyse risks etc), knowing that there is a significant award of damages but being unable to appreciate the need for that to last for the rest of their life (and how this, therefore, requires careful planning and management) often presents significant problems for those managing such an award of damages. The deputy is often left to ‘unpick’ situations P has gotten themselves into – such as repaying loans from ‘friends’.
The case of EXB (EXB v FDZ [2018] EWHC 3456 (QB)
The recent case of EXB v FDZ considered whether there could be justification not to tell P what their award of damages is and decided, on the facts of this case, should not tell P the value of their award.
This is a landmark decision for personal injury (PI) lawyers and deputies up and down the country as cases approach settlement, and provides a key opportunity to consider the long-term consequences of P knowing award of damages – but not appreciating the consequences or need to manage such an award for the long term.
In this case, the Court provided authority for the appointed deputy to withhold the total value of the award from P – and the ability to present a copy of the Court Order confirming the total value of the award should not be disclosed to P, to anyone with knowledge of the settlement.
The hope, in this case, is that the protection of this information would limit some of the likely extremes of behaviour of P. In turn, this enables the deputy to work with P based on smaller-scale budgets and decisions, without the distraction of the total figure of the award of damages that he could not properly understand.
On first reading, this decision is surprising, taking what might be considered a paternalistic approach to information sharing – and preventing P having access to information such that he simply cannot have the capacity to make decisions about his award of damages.
However, a closer analysis of the case and the balanced and considered judgement of Foskett J shows a careful implementation of the key tenets of the MCA 2005 – that where someone lacks capacity a personalised analysis of best interests must determine the outcome.
In so many cases, a careful and timely analysis of whether the injured party has the capacity to understand the totality and consequences of their award of damages could provide a real opportunity to better support P, their family – and ultimately their future. It would also best ensure damages awards can be spent on the care and rehabilitation they are intended for and provide some limitation on P’s presentation of themselves as ‘rich’ to new ‘friends’, which is often a cause of significant concern and poor influences arising.
The future
For PI Lawyers, there is now a need to consider whether an injured party has the capacity to understand the totality of their award of damages and if it is appropriate for them to know this. In conjunction with the deputy, there is a need to consider if information about the total award should be withheld, with Court approval.
The case of EXB held that the defendants were liable for the costs of the Court of Protection application to consider whether to disclose the total amount of damages P – so ensuring such an application is included in the schedule of loss as a head of damage (if needed) will be vital.
Additionally, ensuring appropriate timing and consideration of an application to the Court of Protection will be key to avoid untimely disclosure to the injured party.
Further information
If you need assistance in considering whether an injured party in a case you are dealing with should have information withheld from them, or require support with Court of Protection costs assessment for your schedule of loss, please contact Donna Holmes, Professional Deputy and member of the Office of the Public Guardian’s Panel of Deputies.
Next in our series of ebriefings on the Government’s Green Paper: Transforming public procurement; looking at the Chapter 4 proposal to change the basis of contract awards.
The Academies Financial Handbook is updated annually by the Department for Education and the Education and Skills Funding Agency; it contains a number of governance requirements for academy trusts.
Supreme Court publishes key decision for those working in the UK’s gig economy.
The 'Chocolate Snowman Appeal' is an amazing initiative that Anthony Collins Solicitors' (ACS) employees take part in every year.
The Building Safety Bill (the Bill) is said to be the most significant and wide-ranging change to the regulatory environment for higher risk building (HRBs) for over 45 years.
On 4 November 2020, the Restriction of Public Exit Payments Regulations 2020 (the Regulations) came into force; exit payments for the public sector were capped at £95,000.
The case was brought by the Official Receiver who sought disqualification orders under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA 1986) against the seven trustees of Kids Company and its CEO. It illustrates well the tension between the role of a fulltime paid CEO of a large charity and the role of its board as voluntary trustees/directors.
At the end of 2020, The Charity Governance Code was updated or 'refreshed' as it is termed on its website.
Anthony Collins Solicitors is today (Thursday 11 February) revealing the scale of its social impact during 2020.
In their first podcast of this series, current and future trainees will discuss their journey and route to securing a training contract at Anthony Collins Solicitors.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.