Approval hearings in personal injury, medical negligence and fatal accident claims

Agreeing a settlement figure can feel like the end of a claim. But where the claim is brought on behalf of a child, or for an adult who cannot conduct the proceedings themselves, there is one more important step.

The settlement must be approved by the court.

This is known as an approval hearing. If the claimant is a child, you may also hear it called an infant approval hearing. The name can sound daunting, but in practice the hearing is often more straightforward and much less intimidating than people expect.

Its purpose is to protect the person receiving the compensation. The judge will want to be satisfied that the settlement is fair and will also consider what should happen to the money afterwards.

In a modest child injury claim, that may simply involve deciding where the money should be held until the child’s 18th birthday. But in a serious birth injury, brain injury or other life-changing claims, the arrangements may need to manage a substantial award for many years, sometimes for the rest of the claimant’s life.

Under Part 21 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a settlement involving a child or a protected party is not valid without the court’s approval.

The rule applies whether the underlying claim arises from an accident or from medical negligence.

A child is anyone under 18. A protected party is an adult who lacks the mental capacity to conduct the legal proceedings themselves. The claim will usually be conducted through a litigation friend, often a parent, spouse or other family member.

The rule applies whether the case settles before or after court proceedings have started. It can also apply to an interim payment made before the claim has finished. You can read more in our guide to interim payments in personal injury claims.

There is no minimum settlement below which court approval is no longer needed.

It is also important to distinguish between capacity to conduct the litigation and capacity to manage the compensation. Someone may lack the first but not the second, and that can affect what happens to the money after settlement.

The judge is not simply putting a stamp on an agreement already reached by the lawyers.

The court will consider the evidence, the terms of settlement and usually legal advice explaining why the proposed outcome is reasonable. That may include medical evidence, financial losses and information about future treatment, care or support. The litigation friend must also approve the settlement.

The aim is straightforward: to make sure somebody who may not be able to judge the deal for themselves is not disadvantaged by it.

In a substantial claim involving future financial losses, the court must also be satisfied that the parties have considered whether some damages should be paid by regular periodical payments rather than entirely as a lump sum.

Approval is therefore about more than the headline figure. It is about whether the settlement works fairly for that particular claimant.

Approval can also be needed following a death. That includes cases where the death was caused by medical negligence.

A claim under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 may include compensation for several dependants, perhaps a surviving partner and children. Where a single sum is agreed, it may need to be divided between them.

If one of the dependants is a child, the child’s share must be approved by the court. This applies even where the amount is only a few hundred pounds.

Our fatal injury claims page explains more about compensation following a death caused by negligence.

For families who have never been involved in court proceedings, the word “hearing” can understandably cause concern.

An approval hearing is not a trial. Liability and the amount of compensation have usually already been agreed. There is normally no cross-examination and no need to retell the whole history of the case.

The judge should already have the relevant documents and may ask the litigation friend, the lawyers or, sometimes, the claimant a few questions.

Many approval hearings now take place remotely by video, although some are held in person. Your solicitor should explain beforehand who needs to attend and what to expect.

The hearing itself is often surprisingly short, even after a highly complex claim. Much of the detailed work has already been done beforehand.

Approving the settlement is only part of the court’s job. The judge must also give directions about what happens to the money.

For a child who is expected to be able to manage their finances at 18, the usual starting point is that the money can be held by the Court Funds Office. If it remains there, it becomes payable to the child when they turn 18.

Parents are sometimes understandably uneasy about a child gaining control of a substantial sum at 18. But if the child has capacity to manage their finances at that age, there simply is no option to keep the money locked away for longer. Control of the fund passes to them. If they are likely to lack capacity at 18, different arrangements apply, as explained below.

The money earns interest. Court Funds Office rates change from time to time and, at the time of writing in September 2026, the special account rate is 3.75%. You can check the current interest rate on the Government website.

Some or all of the money can be released before 18 if there is a proper reason, but a parent cannot simply withdraw it. A request must be made to the court explaining what the money is needed for and how it will benefit the child.

The request can be made in writing with supporting evidence and may be dealt with without a hearing. Even so, there can be legal expense involved, and those costs are unlikely to be recoverable from the defendant after the claim has ended.

Yes. The Court Funds Office is not the only option.

The court may allow a child’s money to be held in a bank, building society or similar account instead. It will want to be satisfied that the money will be properly protected and that the proposed arrangement is suitable. In some cases, financial evidence comparing the options may be needed.

A bare trust or another arrangement may sometimes be considered. Where compensation is managed outside the court’s direct control, the court may require an undertaking from the person responsible for it. An undertaking is a legally binding promise to the court.

The right arrangement depends on the amount involved and the child’s circumstances. It is not simply a case of choosing whichever account pays the most interest.

The position is different where a child is likely to lack capacity to manage the money when they turn 18, or where an adult receiving compensation already lacks that capacity.

This often arises in serious brain injury and birth injury claims. The question becomes not just where the money should be kept, but who should have legal authority to manage it.

Where a protected beneficiary receives £100,000 or more, the normal position is that an application must be made to the Court of Protection for a deputy to be appointed, unless somebody already has the necessary authority under a registered lasting or enduring power of attorney, or an existing deputyship.

A deputy can be a family member or a professional. In high-value cases a professional deputy is often appropriate because managing the award can involve investments, property, care, benefits and substantial expenditure over many years.

If the injury itself has created the need for a deputy, reasonable future deputyship costs may form part of the damages claim. That is different from a case where the claimant already lacked capacity for an unrelated reason, as can happen with older people. In that situation, the defendant would not ordinarily be responsible for costs which the negligence did not cause.

Our Compensation Protection team acts for people and families in this position.

A registered property and financial affairs lasting power of attorney can make a significant difference.

If a valid property and financial affairs LPA is already in place, a deputy may not be needed. The attorney may already have authority to manage the compensation, depending on the terms of the LPA and any directions made by the court.

Without an LPA, EPA or deputyship, being somebody’s spouse, son, daughter or “next of kin” does not by itself give a general legal right to manage their finances. With a small award, the court may be able to approve a more proportionate arrangement. In other cases, a Court of Protection application will be necessary.

Our guidance on lasting powers of attorney explains why putting authority in place before capacity is lost can be so important.

It can, so this should be considered before compensation is simply paid into an ordinary account.

Where the recipient has capacity, one option may be a personal injury trust. Our guide to compensation protection and personal injury trusts explains how these arrangements work.

Where the person lacks capacity, compensation administered by the court, or which can only be dealt with at its direction, can be disregarded under certain means-tested benefit rules. That is not the same thing as a personal injury trust.

An attorney or deputy should not assume that they can simply create a trust on the person’s behalf. Specific authority from the Court of Protection may be needed.

This can matter particularly in modest claims involving older people, where the cost of further Court of Protection proceedings may quickly become disproportionate to the amount recovered.

By the time an approval hearing arrives, families are often keen to see the claim finished. The hearing itself may last only a short time, but it performs an important job.

The court is checking that the settlement is fair and that the compensation will be dealt with safely afterwards.

For a child, those arrangements may only be needed until their 18th birthday. For somebody who will never be able to manage a substantial award alone, the decisions made around settlement may shape how that money is managed for the rest of their life.