View source for 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==
*[[Dunhill v Burgin (2012) EWHC 3163 (QB), (2012) MHLO 115]]
*[[Dunhill v Burgin (2012) EWCA Civ 397, (2012) MHLO 33]]
**[[Dunhill v Burgin (2011) EWHC 464 (QB)]]

==Other==
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 

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

==External link==
{{#bailii:(2011) EWHC 464 (QB)}}

[[Category:Other capacity cases]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2011 cases]]