In May 2004, when aged 4, the Claimant fell from the window of the flat where he was living with his mother and sister. He sustained serious orthopaedic injuries from which he had recovered.

The Court had previously approved an apportionment of liability between the parties.

There was no dispute that the Claimant had demonstrated some evidence of impaired school progress and was hyperactive. The Claimant’s medical experts considered the Claimant had probably suffered a brain injury and there was significant brain impairment caused by the accident. The Defendant’s experts considered his impairments were consistent with pre-injury functioning and not attributable to the accident.

The Claimant’s litigation friend, his father was no longer prepared to co-operate with the medical experts and had instructed the solicitor to settle the claim as quickly as possible. By this time the Claimant was 14.

The Claimant’s solicitors sought guidance from the Court as to the whether the appointment of the litigation friend should be terminated.

The Court held that any settlement would need to be improved by the Court in any event, even if a new litigation friend was appointment, the Claimant’s parents would still remain uncooperative and it would not assist the Claimant’s best interests. The Litigation Friend should remain and the settlement should be negotiated.