0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Lindsay v Wood, High Court, 16 November 2006

20 December 2006
The issues

Capacity – Masterman-Lister test. Whether Claimant was a patient within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983.

The facts

The Claimant had suffered serious brain injuries in a road traffic accident. Liability had been admitted. The Claimant suffered from a mental disorder caused by the accident. There was an issue as to his capacity to conduct the litigation and manage any award of damages.

The decision

Amongst the issues that psychiatrists would consider when taking into account capacity was vulnerability to exploitation. However, this did not of itself lead to the conclusion that there was lack of capacity. The issue was the ability of the Claimant to make a rational decision. In a case of this sort the Claimant might have to weigh up the advantages and the risks of accepting an offer of periodical payment as against an offer of a lump sum plus periodical payments. The evidence suggested that the Claimant would be able to manage such a complex decision or unable to deal with the advice he was likely to receive or give rational instructions based on that advice. The Claimant therefore came within the Masterman- Lister test and was a patient for the purposes of that test. Generally, where the legal team of a Claimant were unable to present a positive case as to whether the Claimant was a patient they should give consideration to seeking an Order of the Court directing the official solicitor to consider the evidence, appoint his own medical expert, appear and make such submissions as were considered appropriate.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up