COP costs cases

The old category structure used on this page is comprehensive as it contains every relevant case. The new database structure was introduced in 2019. It is more potentially useful than the old categorisation system: it includes all cases since January 2017, but only a minority of older cases: see Special:Drilldown/Cases. The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page. Asterisks mark those cases which have been added to the new database structure.

Case and summary Date added Categories
* Inherent jurisdiction costs T v L [2021] EWHC 2147 (Fam)The first and second respondents sought an order that their costs, which exceeded £215,000, would be met in full by K (the vulnerable person who was the subject of the proceedings). The court made no order as to costs, the judge noting that "it is my view that no order for costs is likely to be the appropriate starting point in welfare-oriented proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction concerning a vulnerable adult". 2021‑09‑30 13:01:14

* Costs in s21A case BP v London Borough of Harrow [2019] EWCOP 20"The relevant circumstances of the adjournment of the January hearing are that the Respondent, the London Borough of Harrow, offered at the hearing a trial of BP returning home. ... For the Applicant, it is submitted that this is a case where it is appropriate to depart from the usual costs rule and to order the costs of the January hearing be paid by the Respondent because of the Respondent's consistent failure to offer a trial period at home before the start of and for the duration of the proceedings, and its decision to do so only after the January hearing had commenced. ... Overall, I can see the basis on which the Applicant considers an application for costs to be justified. However, this was a finely balanced case on the Applicant's own submissions in position statements, in particular that of 15 June 2018. I bear in mind the authorities on which the parties rely, in particular the Applicant's reliance on the comments of Hooper LJ in the Court of Appeal. I note the circumstances of Manchester City Council v. G, E and F [2010] EWHC 3385 were quite different. On balance and considering the circumstances as a whole, I am not persuaded that it is appropriate to depart from the general rule on this occasion. I decide this based on the chronological position of the parties set out above and all the circumstances. The Respondent's conduct falls short, to what degree is immaterial, of the necessary test. This case does not represent a blatant disregard of the processes of the Act and the Respondent's obligation to respect BP's rights under ECHR as in the Manchester case (paraphrased slightly)." 2019‑06‑15 22:57:39 2019 cases, COP costs cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii

* Disproportionate litigation - legal costs, and LIP costs London Borough of Hounslow v A Father & A Mother [2018] EWCOP 23Judge's headnote: "Costs in the Court of Protection - Disproportionate litigation - Whether a litigant in person is entitled to recover costs including loss of earnings" 2019‑03‑16 20:44:59 2018 cases, COP costs cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii

* COP costs Re A (A Patient, now deceased) (No 3) [2018] EWCOP 16"I have before me an application [which] relates to certain costs orders against Mr Fitzgerald dated 22 and 24 March 2016 which I made in the Court of Protection, as President of the Court of Protection, in proceedings (95908524), to which Mr Fitzgerald was a party. Those proceedings related to Mr Fitzgerald's now deceased aunt A, a patient whose affairs were under the control of the Court of Protection until her death on 5 March 2018. Central to Mr Fitzgerald's application are the circumstances in which, in the course of those proceedings, SJ Lush, by an order dated 28 May 2013, had appointed her niece, C, to be A's deputy for property and affairs." 2018‑07‑19 15:37:34 2018 cases, COP costs cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii

* COP costs NHS Dorset CCG v LB [2018] EWCOP 7"In 2017, the NHS Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group launched what were intended to be four test cases seeking clarification of the law concerning the deprivation of liberty of mentally capacitated adults. For various reasons, however, all of those applications, or in some cases that part of the application relating to the deprivation of liberty issue, were withdrawn, but not before the Official Solicitor had agreed to act for two of the respondents with the benefit of publicly-funded certificates and had incurred some legal costs. Subsequently, the Official Solicitor has applied for all or part of those costs to be paid by the applicant. This judgment sets out my decision on that costs application and the reasons for that decision." 2018‑04‑09 00:53:58 2018 cases, COP costs cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii

* Medical treatment, costs, anonymity Re SW [2017] EWCOP 7(1) "[A]s matters stand, the transplant being proposed cannot proceed, whatever the court may say or do. As it has been presented to the court, this scarcely coherent application is totally without merit, it is misconceived and it is vexatious. It would be contrary to every principle of how litigation ought to be conducted in the Court of Protection, and every principle of proper case management, to allow this hopelessly defective application to proceed on the forlorn assumption that the son could somehow get his tackle in order and present a revised application which could somehow avoid the fate of its predecessor." (2) "As against the son, the claim for costs could not, in my judgment, be clearer. Given everything I have said, this is the plainest possible case for departing from the ordinary rule, set out in rule 157 of the Court of Protection Rules 2007, and applying the principles set out in rule 159. ... [B]oth Dr Waghorn and Dr Jooste, in my judgment, are persons against whom a costs order can be made even though are not, formally, parties to the litigation – and, if that is so, then for the same reasons as in relation to the son, it is, in my judgment, fair and just to order them to pay the costs." (3) "There is no reason why either SW or SAN should be named, and, indeed, every reason why they should not. Nor, in all the circumstances, is there any reason why the son should be named. Dr Waghorn and Dr Jooste, however, stand in a very different position. There is a very strong public interest in exposing the antics which these two struck-off doctors have got up to, not least so that others may be protected from their behaviour." 2018‑03‑28 22:40:05 2017 cases, Anonymisation cases, COP costs cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Reporting restriction order cases

* Costs case Mole v Parkdean Holiday Parks Ltd [2017] EWHC B10 (Costs)"The issue that arises for determination is whether the First Claimant ('the Claimant') is entitled to recover a success fee pursuant to a costs order against the Defendants in respect of work carried by his solicitors for a period after the Claimant's mother was replaced as a litigation friend by the Official Solicitor. ... In my judgment the analysis in Blankley v Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 18, [2015] MHLO 7 is clear and it leads to the conclusion that the retainer that was first entered into 2006 has remained effective during the course of the claim unaffected by the substitution of a new litigation friend. Accordingly, the claim for costs in the period after the appointment of the Official Solicitor is not dependent upon the Official Solicitor having entered into a new agreement on 1 April 2013 or indeed founded upon any such agreement. There was already in existence an agreement which was sufficient to ground the liability of the Claimant to pay the success fee under the original CFA for the period after the appointment of the Official Solicitor." 2017‑04‑29 22:03:20 2017 cases, COP costs cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii

V v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2016] EWCOP 29, [2016] MHLO 42 — "As the Applicant indicated might be the case she makes an application that part of her costs be paid by the Respondents on an indemnity basis. The application has been made and resisted on written submissions." 2016‑10‑09 14:42:34 2016 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript

Re M (Costs): A Local Authority v M [2015] EWCOP 45, [2015] MHLO 134 — Court of Protection costs judgment. 2016‑02‑08 20:04:52 2015 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript

Somerset v MK [2015] EWCOP B1, [2015] MHLO 131 — "In the light of all of this it seems to me that this is plainly a case where the usual order for costs should be departed from to the extent that the Local Authority should pay the costs of all of the other parties involved. The other matter that I should deal with is whether those payments should be on an indemnity basis. ... I am very conscious of the impact of such an order. However, in that same case of G v E [2010] EWHC 3385 (Fam) Mr Justice Baker considered that the local authority's conduct amounted to 'a significant degree of unreasonableness' giving rise to a liability for costs on an indemnity basis. If one reads my judgment in full it is clear that that there was in this case as well a significant degree of unreasonableness both in the Local Authority's approach to the substantive and procedural issues in the case. In those circumstances it seems to me that the argument for indemnity costs is an overwhelming one in this case and that is the order that I intend to make here." 2015‑12‑22 22:31:12 2015 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript

Re FT [2015] EWCOP 49, [2015] MHLO 120 — "This is an application for reconsideration of an order made by an authorised court officer appointing two of FT's daughters as his deputies for property and affairs. ... In my judgment, the factor of magnetic importance in this case is that FT named MA and PB to be the executors of his last will ... Accordingly, pursuant to rule 89(5), I affirm the order made on 2 September 2014 appointing the respondents [MA and PB] jointly and severally to act as FT's deputies for property and affairs. ... Costs ... I am singularly unimpressed with the applicants' conduct. Having made the application, they failed to follow it through. ... This is a case in which a departure from the general rule is justified. ... [T]he fact that [DC's] husband is in receipt of ESA and that she has claimed an exemption from the fees, doesn't grant her immunity from an order for costs being made against her. I intend to make an order that the costs are to be assessed on the standard basis and paid by DC, ST and TT in equal shares, and that the deputies are authorised to make an interest-free loan to the applicants from KT's funds to pay the costs, and that the loan will be repayable by the applicants from their respective shares of FT's estate on his death." 2015‑12‑22 20:13:50 2015 cases, COP costs cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript

Aidiniantz v Riley [2015] EWCOP 65, [2015] MHLO 81 — "These proceedings in the Court of Protection are the latest setting for the poisonous feud between the children of Mrs Grace Aidiniantz. On this occasion, they dispute where their mother should live, who should care for her, who should see her, and whether her finances should be investigated." 2015‑10‑31 20:34:19 2015 cases, Best interests, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript

LB Redbridge v G (No 6) [2015] EWCA Civ 446, [2015] MHLO 40The Official Solicitor unsuccessfully appealed against an order that Associated Newspapers Limited should pay (only) 30% of his costs. (1) The primary ground of appeal - that the COP Rules did not apply - was described by the Court of Appeal as "simply a device to suggest that the costs presumption should be reversed". (2) The alternative ground was that if the COP Rules did apply then the judge had erred in the exercise of his discretion in the proportionate costs order that he made. In relation to this the Court of Appeal held that (a) given that inaccurate letters from the OS (stating that that ANL were prevented from visiting G) had triggered ANL's application, and that the OS had not understood the public importance of the media's general role, a proportionate costs order was unsurprising; and (b) multiple representation where there is no significant difference between the arguments of parties on an application is to be discouraged by a limitation in costs. 2015‑05‑23 22:30:03 2015 cases, 39 Essex Chambers summary, Brief summary, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript

The Public Guardian v CT [2014] EWCOP 51, [2014] MHLO 128 — "This is the first occasion on which a respondent has sought an order for costs against the Public Guardian in respect of a safeguarding application regarding the respondent's conduct as the donee of a Lasting Power of Attorney." 2014‑12‑31 10:21:46 2014 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other LPA cases, Transcript

Re A and B (Court of Protection: Delay and Costs) [2014] EWCOP 48, [2014] MHLO 125 — "Two cases that I heard on consecutive days last month illustrate the problem of delay and expense in proceedings in the Court of Protection. In Case A, the proceedings lasted for 18 months. ... In Case B, the proceedings lasted for five years. ... Each case therefore generated legal costs at a rate of approximately £9,000 per month. ... The main responsibility for this situation and its solution must lie with the court, which has the power to control its proceedings. The purpose of this judgment is to express the view that the case management provisions in the Court of Protection Rules have proved inadequate on their own to secure the necessary changes in practice. While cases about children and cases about incapacitated adults have differences, their similarities are also obvious. There is a clear procedural analogy to be drawn between many welfare proceedings in the Court of Protection and proceedings under the Children Act. As a result of the Public Law Outline, robust case management, use of experts only where necessary, judicial continuity, and a statutory time-limit, the length of care cases has halved in two years. Yet Court of Protection proceedings can commonly start with no timetable at all for their conclusion, nor any early vision of what an acceptable outcome would look like. The young man in Case B is said to have a mental age of 8. What would we now say if it took five years – or 18 months – to decide the future of an 8-year-old? I therefore believe that the time has come to introduce the same disciplines in the Court of Protection as now apply in the Family Court. Accordingly, and at his request, I am sending a copy of this judgment to the President of the Court of Protection, Sir James Munby, for his consideration." 2014‑12‑30 23:34:43 2014 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript

Milton Keynes Council v RR [2014] EWCOP 34, [2014] MHLO 120 — "MKC had set a juggernaut in motion by their initial failure to investigate the safeguarding alerts and their decision to remove P from her home in circumstances which were unlawful. This case concerned the very sad and tragic consequences for P which flowed from that decision. I have no difficulty in concluding that MKC’s practice in this case was substandard. It is P’s misfortune to have been the victim of that substandard practice. MKC’s acts and omissions have detrimentally affected both P and her family and changed the course of their lives. In my judgment an award of costs is manifestly justified. I have considered whether a partial costs order is appropriate but have come to the conclusion that this is an exceptional case in which a full costs order is justified. Accordingly the Applicant shall pay the 2nd respondent’s costs of the proceedings to date to be subject to detailed assessment unless agreed between the parties. The costs order shall include a detailed assessment of any publicly funded costs of the 2nd Respondent." 2014‑12‑30 22:54:09 2014 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript

N v E [2014] EWCOP 27, [2014] MHLO 91 — "This judgment relates primarily to the costs of the proceedings and, in particular, whether M should be made to pay her own costs or whether they should be assessed and paid from E's estate. ... The judgment concludes with a brief discussion of how the court was able to salvage E's preferences for medical treatment at the end of her life from the wreckage caused by the termination of the appointment of her health-care proxy. This aspect of the proceedings was uncontested and reflects the consensus of all parties." 2014‑08‑15 21:13:09 2014 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript

LB Redbridge v G (No 4) [2014] EWCOP 5, [2014] MHLO 66 — "Stripped of all rhetoric, the essential point here is very simple: it is that [Associated Newspapers Limited] made an application, to be joined in proceedings in which it had no legally recognised interest, which was seemingly unprecedented (para 52 of my previous judgment), which was, as I said, misconceived and which failed completely. The question at the end of the day is whether in all the circumstances, and having regard in particular to the matters referred to in CoPR 2007 rule 159, it is right to depart from the general rule in rule 157. In my judgment it is, given the way in which I have characterised ANL's application and the reasons why it failed. But that does not mean that ANL should necessarily have to pay all the costs, and I have concluded that that would be to go too far. There are, in my judgment, three factors which, taken in combination, justify this conclusion: first, the public importance of the issues; secondly, the stance adopted beforehand in particular by the Official Solicitor; and, thirdly, the fact that I do not see why ANL should be required to pay two sets of costs. Doing the best I can, and readily acknowledging that any figure is to an extent arbitrary, my conclusion is that ANL should be ordered to pay 30% of the costs of the local authority and 30% of the costs of the Official Solicitor (including his costs of instructing two counsel). The costs, if they cannot be agreed, will have to be the subject of detailed assessment. In concluding I wish to make one thing absolutely clear. The essential factor driving the order for costs I have made in this case was, in addition to the fact it failed, the nature of the application, namely an application to be joined as a party. It should not be assumed that the same approach would have been appropriate if the dispute had been, as it usually is in cases involving the media, a dispute as to the need for or the ambit of a reporting restriction order. Very different considerations arise in such cases. Conventionally, there is often no order for costs, whatever the outcome. Nothing I have said here is intended to have any application in such cases." 2014‑08‑01 10:54:19 2014 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript

A Local Authority v ED [2013] EWHC 3069 (COP), [2013] MHLO 92 — "The issues: (1) Does she have litigation capacity? (2) Does she have capacity to make decisions as to: (i) Where she should live; (ii) Contact; (iii) Her personal care needs; (iv) The removal of her pubic hair; (v) Whether or not she can consent to give an Achieving Best Evidence interview. (3) If the answer to any of the above is 'no', what are her best interests in respect of each? (4) Should there be a protocol governing the enquiries to be made, (which could be used in the investigation by the police/Local Authority and/or Official Solicitor if in post), of purported allegations made by her as to, for example, physical assaults upon her? If yes, what should be the operative terms and conditions of such a protocol?" 2013‑10‑23 23:06:53 2013 cases, Best interests, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript

A Local Authority v HS [2013] EWHC 2410 (COP), [2013] MHLO 58 — "These applications for costs against the local authority are made by the Official Solicitor on behalf of the First Respondent and by the Third Respondent, HLS, who is the brother of the First Respondent." 2013‑08‑01 21:49:35 2013 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript

Re CP; WBC v CP [2012] EWHC 1944 (COP), [2012] MHLO 144LPM, the brother of CP (called C in the 'blue room' judgment) sought a costs order against the local authority. (1) The court should follow the general rule in welfare cases (that there be no order as to costs: rule 157) where it is appropriate, and it is only local authorities who have broken the law, or who are guilty of misconduct (that falls within rule 159) that have reason to fear a costs order (G v E). (2) The questions to be addressed are (a) is the departure from the general rule justified in all the circumstances, including the conduct of the parties, the outcome of the case and the role of the Applicant as a public body?; and (b) if so, what order should be made? (Neary). (3) The judge concluded that (a) the local authority's actions were tainted with illegality, (b) the local authority's decision making was impoverished and disorganised, (c) the local authority was responsible for the delay in referring CP's circumstances to the Court of Protection and/or the High Court in its children and inherent jurisdictions, and (d) the local authority could have arrived at the position concluded by the court many months earlier. (4) The local authority was ordered to pay LPM's costs to be assessed if not agreed. 2012‑12‑20 01:49:08 2012 cases, Brief summary, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript

Re D (Official Solicitor's costs); An NHS Trust v D [2012] EWHC 886 (COP), [2012] MHLO 48(1) In medical cases in the Court of Protection, an order that the health authority pays half the Official Solicitor's costs is the starting point, from which the court can depart if there is reason to do so (thus the practice under the inherent jurisdiction continues). (2) On the facts, this was the order made. 2012‑05‑05 13:11:21 2012 cases, Brief summary, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript

B v B [2010] EWHC 543 (Fam) — "This is an application by the Official Solicitor for an order that Mr B do pay the Official Solicitor’s costs, on an indemnity basis, of acting on behalf of Mr B as his guardian ad litem, until the Official Solicitor was discharged by order of 19th August 2009." 2012‑05‑05 12:41:58 2010 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript

Re AH (Costs); AH v Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2011] EWHC 3524 (COP)The relevant respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the nine applicants in this welfare case: (1) half the costs between issue of proceedings and settlement or final hearing, and (2) full costs of the costs application. The judge concluded: 'The conclusion I have reached in this case represents a partial departure from the general rule that there should be no order for costs. It is a case where there has been no bad faith or flagrant misconduct, but there has been substandard practice and a failure by the public bodies to recognise the weakness of their own cases and the strength of the cases against them. In such circumstances they cannot invoke Rule 157 at the expense of others.' 2012‑01‑12 22:27:38 2011 cases, Brief summary, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript

Re Steven Neary; LB Hillingdon v Steven Neary [2011] EWHC 3522 (COP)(1) Each application for costs must be considered on its own merit: the previous cases were illustrative only and provided no guidance on the Rules. (2) The judge departed from the general rule in welfare cases (that each party bears his own costs) as this was not a typical case: Hillingdon's actions were significantly unreasonable in relation to the illegality of its actions, its disorganised decision-making, the lack of a proper best interests assessment, its uncooperative attitude to Stephen's father, its delay in referring the matter to the court (thereby increasing costs), and its attempt to defend its actions to the end, both in court and in the media. (3) Hillingdon were ordered to pay the OS's costs from the date of issue to the conclusion of the main hearing in May 2011 but not (a) costs in relation to the press issue, which raised issues of general public importance, or (b) costs following the main hearing, during which Hillingdon adopted a cooperative stance. (4) The application for indemnity costs was respectable, but an award on the standard basis was sufficient. 2012‑01‑04 20:10:11 2011 cases, Brief summary, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript

Re RB (Adult); A London Borough v RB (Adult) (No 3) [2011] EWHC 2576 (Fam)(1) MF's claim for compensation was dismissed as it had no factual foundation; it also had no legal basis. (2) MF sought costs from the local authority; the Official Solicitor sought costs against MF (from a certain date) and the local authority (to the extent that costs were increased by their stance): there was no order for costs, except that MF was to pay 20% of the Official Solicitor's costs between certain dates, to reflect the time spent on the peripheral issues which MF had raised and the 'extravagant, strident and on occasions vicious way in which he chose to pursue them'. 2011‑12‑03 20:39:48 2011 cases, Brief summary, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript

Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2011] EWCA Civ 1333The council sought a costs order against P in relation to the Court of Appeal proceedings. (1) The general rule on appeals from the COP to the Court of Appeal is, in accordance with CPR 44.3(2)(a), that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs (subject, where relevant, to costs protection under s11 Access to Justice Act 1999). (2) The general rule in COP welfare cases (that there be no order as to costs) was irrelevant, as was the council's discreditable conduct at first instance. (2) Other factors were taken into account and the court made no order as to costs: 'Among the primary reasons for making no order is that the reason for and the importance of the appeal was not really at all about how P will be dealt with. The point of major importance for the local authority, and indeed local authorities generally, was how often they have to come back to court in this and other like cases.' 2011‑11‑21 21:51:45 2011 cases, Brief summary, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript

Re S; D v R (the deputy of S) [2010] EWHC 3748 (COP)Costs judgment in Court of Protection: (1) up to the December 2009 hearing, because the proceedings had been necessary, the normal rule that costs were to be paid by S's estate was to apply, but (2) from that point onwards, because of her conduct of proceedings, Mrs D was to bear her own costs, plus 75% of the Deputy's costs on the standard (not indemnity) basis. 2011‑10‑16 22:10:15 2010 cases, Brief summary, COP costs cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript

Manchester City Council v G [2011] EWCA Civ 939Manchester's appeal against the costs order against it in the G v E case was unsuccessful. 2011‑08‑02 19:39:45 2011 cases, Brief summary, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript

G v E [2010] EWHC 3385 (Fam) — Costs judgment. "In all the circumstances, I conclude that this is a case for departing from the general rule set out in rule 157 of the Court of Protection rules, and I make an order in the following terms: (1) That the local authority should pay the costs of G, F and E, including pre-litigation costs, up to and including the first day of the hearing before me on 14th January 2010 on an indemnity basis. (2) The local authority shall pay one third of the costs of G, F and E from that date up to and including the hearing on 6 May 2010 on a standard basis. (3) All costs will be subject to a detailed assessment, if not agreed." 2011‑01‑04 23:32:35 2010 cases, COP costs cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript

Re RC (Deceased); SC v LB Hackney [2010] EWHC B29 (COP)LBH had successfully applied for a property and affairs LPA to be declared invalid and for residence orders; costs were awarded against the donee, SC; the costs order was appealed; subsequently RC died. (1) The court could hear the appeal against costs (but not other issues) after RC's death under its residual jurisdiction; this was so despite the only relevant rule being narrower in scope than to allow this. (2) The judge was wrong to hold that "the LPA was a personal welfare LPA, and therefore its general rule would fall within rule 157". (The general rules are rule 156, that P pay for property and affairs proceedings, and rule 157, that there be no order for costs in personal welfare proceedings.) (3) As a general rule the incidence of costs in cases where there is an LPA for health and welfare should not necessarily differ from the rule in property and affairs cases, subject to the provisions of rule 159 (departure from general rule if justified in circumstances). (4) Reservations were expressed about the manner in which the LPA was declared to be invalid; also, contrary to the judge's findings, SC did not provoke all the issues which she lost. (5) As well as being wrong, the costs decision was unjust: SC was not properly forewarned about the possibility of an adverse costs order; the judge did not consider SC's ability to pay; he did not fully consider the nature of the relationship between SC and RC and the fact SC acted in good faith; the judge was wrong to say this was an exceptional case, as although litigants like SC would try the patience of a saint they were not untypical in the Court of Protection. (6) Accordingly, the general rule (r157) should apply and the court should only depart from the general rule where the circumstances so justify, for instance clear bad faith, where there has been a careful costs warning and a consideration of ability to pay. (7) The order that SC pay LBH's costs was set aside and in its place no order for costs was made. 2010‑08‑10 23:36:50 2010 cases, COP costs cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other LPA cases, Transcript

Article titles

The following 31 pages are in this category.