Скачать или смотреть TMC LEGAL | CHINDA V CARDIFF & VALE UNIVERSITY HEALTH BOARD [2025] EWHC 2692 (KB)

Chinda v Cardiff & Vale University Health Board [2025] EWHC 2692 (KB)

The High Court refused a claimant's application to withdraw an accepted Part 36 offer in a clinical negligence claim. Senior Master Cook held that vulnerability, fatigue, and a change of preference from periodical payments to lump sum settlement did not constitute the requisite "change of circumstances" under CPR 36.10(3), which requires radical alteration such as new evidence or legal development, not merely a change of mind about known facts.

🔑 Key Points
"Change of circumstances" under CPR 36.10(3) requires significant alteration in case circumstances, such as new evidence or legal developments, not merely a change of mind or reassessment of known facts
Part 36's self-contained code prioritises certainty and predictability; parties need to know where they stand when offers are made or considered
Vulnerability provisions in PD 1A address participation in proceedings and giving evidence, not settlement decision-making capacity
Medical vulnerability affecting concentration must be raised at the earliest stage if it is to be relevant to Part 36 withdrawal applications
Change of mind based on later financial advice about settlement structure does not justify withdrawing an accepted offer

📋 Case Summary
Case: Chinda v Cardiff & Vale University Health Board [2025] EWHC 2692 (KB)
Judge: Senior Master Cook
Court: High Court (King's Bench Division)
Core Holding: Vulnerability and fatigue do not create grounds to withdraw accepted Part 36 offers where the "change of circumstances" is merely a change of mind about settlement preferences

⚖️ Why This Matters
This decision reinforces Part 36's fundamental requirement for certainty in settlement negotiations. It clarifies that medical vulnerability and cognitive difficulties do not automatically justify withdrawal of accepted offers unless they affected the party's capacity to instruct solicitors. The judgment emphasises that specialist solicitors should be presumed aware of their client's difficulties and should raise concerns before settlement negotiations, not after acceptance.

🎯 What The Court Decided
Application to withdraw accepted Part 36 offer refused
Claimant's fatigue, pain, and later reflection did not constitute "change of circumstances" under CPR 36.10(3)
Change of preference from periodical payments to lump sum based on subsequent financial advice was merely a change of mind
Vulnerability provisions in PD 1A relate to participation in proceedings, not settlement decision-making
No suggestion had been raised before the hearing that vulnerability affected the claimant's ability to instruct representatives
Specialist solicitors should be presumed aware of client difficulties and should raise concerns proactively
Allowing withdrawal would introduce unacceptable uncertainty into Part 36's certain process

📚 Topics Covered
Part 36 offer withdrawal after acceptance (CPR 36.10)
Change of circumstances test under CPR 36.10(3)
Vulnerability and capacity in settlement negotiations
Practice Direction 1A vulnerability provisions
Periodical payments vs lump sum settlements
Provisional damages in clinical negligence
Part 36 certainty and predictability principles
Settlement decision-making in catastrophic injury claims
Solicitors' duties regarding vulnerable clients

👨‍⚖️ Judge
Senior Master Cook

💼 Useful For
Costs Lawyers | Clinical Negligence Solicitors | Personal Injury Lawyers | Costs Draftsmen | Civil Litigators | Settlement Negotiators | Barristers

🔗 Links
📖 Blog: https://www.tmclegal.co.uk/can-a-vuln...
⚖️ BAILII: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...

📞 Contact TMC Legal
📧 [email protected] | 📱 01628 526 236 | 🌐 www.tmclegal.co.uk
Specialist costs drafting, negotiation, budgeting, and detailed assessment representation nationwide.

🔔 Subscribe
SUBSCRIBE for regular updates on costs law, civil litigation, and CPR developments

📖 Key Authorities
Cumper v Pothecary [1941] 2 KB 58 - Change of circumstances requires significant alteration such as new evidence
Flynn v Scougall [2004] 1 WLR 3069 - Test requires demonstrable change in circumstances altering fairness
Evans v Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2015] 1 WLR 4659 - Substantial and material change required
Retailers v Visa [2017] EWHC 3606 (Comm) - Radical change required, not reassessment of known facts
March v Frenchay Healthcare NHS Trust [1996] PIQR Q101 - Interests of justice in serious injury litigation

🏷️ Topics
#Part36 #CPR3610 #ClinicalNegligence #SettlementOffers #VulnerableParties #PD1A #PeriodicPayments #ProvisionalDamages #CostsLaw

⚠️ Disclaimer
Educational purposes only. Not legal advice. Consult a qualified costs lawyer or solicitor for specific guidance.

© 2025 TMC Legal Limited