Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
View all articles
Authors

COSTS: D v R (the Deputy of S) and S [2010] EWHC 3748 (COP), [2012] COPLR 154

Sep 29, 2018, 21:32 PM
Slug : 2010ewhc3748cop
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 29, 2012, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 98943

(Court of Protection, Henderson J, 4 October 2010)

The man made substantial cash gifts to a woman who had been caring for him. The man's daughter brought proceedings to set aside those gifts on the grounds of undue influence. The carer applied to the court for a determination of the man's capacity to decide whether the proceedings should continue. The court found the man did not have capacity for those purposes and the daughter applied for a costs order against the carer on an indemnity basis.

The general rule under s 55(1) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was that in proceedings concerning P's property and affairs, P should pay the costs. There had to be good reason for departing from that rule.

Categories :
  • Court of Protection
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from