Rowe (by her litigation representative, Public Trustee of Western Australia) v Barton as Trustee for Barton Family Trust trading as Sealwerx WA (No 3)

The applicant, Rowe, represented by the Public Trustee of Western Australia, sought approval of a compromise under rule 9.70 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) with Barton, as trustee for Barton Family Trust trading as Sealwerx WA. The dispute arose from a personal injury claim, where Rowe was under a disability due to her age and mental incapacity. The settlement in question was intended to resolve the ongoing litigation amicably.

The primary legal issue for the court was whether the compromise was in the best interest of Rowe. This required consideration of various factors, including the risks, costs, and delays of continuing the litigation, the strength of the case, and the terms of the settlement. The court also needed to ensure that the settlement was supported by an independent legal opinion, which had to be satisfied that the compromise was beneficial to the interests of the person under disability.

The court found that the settlement was indeed beneficial to Rowe's interests. The compromise appeared to be fair and reasonable, taking into account the potential risks and costs associated with proceeding to trial. Additionally, the independent legal opinion supported the settlement, confirming it was in Rowe's best interests. The court was satisfied that all relevant factors had been appropriately considered and that the compromise was in line with the legal requirements. Consequently, the application for approval of the compromise was approved.

The court ordered the approval of the settlement, dismissal of the proceeding, vacating of all extant costs orders, and no order as to costs. These orders were made under the authority of rule 9.70 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The entry of orders was governed by rule 39.32 of the same rules.