Display title | Hinduja v Hinduja [2020] EWHC 1533 (Ch) |
Default sort key | Hinduja v Hinduja (2020) EWHC 1533 (Ch) |
Page length (in bytes) | 1,232 |
Page ID | 10808 |
Page content language | en - English |
Page content model | wikitext |
Indexing by robots | Allowed |
Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
Edit | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
Move | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
Page creator | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
Date of page creation | 21:33, 25 June 2020 |
Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
Date of latest edit | 11:55, 8 October 2021 |
Total number of edits | 2 |
Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 0 |
Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
Description | Content |
Article description: (description ) This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | (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. |