Category:COP costs cases

Costs order The Official Solicitor was awarded a costs order against the Trust because of its delay in issuing these proceedings.

Costs AA's parents argued that the ICB should pay their costs.

Departure from general costs rule The judge summarised the law on costs in COP welfare cases (the non-exhaustive list of factors in COPR 19.5(2) must be considered when deciding whether to depart from the general rule that there be no order) and ordered that the local authority pay 85% of the costs incurred by the OS relating to an attended hearing that could have been avoided (not including the judicial visit).

Inherent jurisdiction costs 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".

Costs in s21A case "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 ..→

Disproportionate litigation - legal costs, and LIP costs Judge's headnote: "Costs in the Court of Protection - Disproportionate litigation - Whether a litigant in person is entitled to recover costs including loss of earnings"

COP costs "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."

COP costs "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."

Medical treatment, costs, anonymity (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 ..→

Costs case "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 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 ..→

Costs "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."

Costs 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.'