Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
COSTS: D v R (the Deputy of S) and S  EWHC 3748 (COP),  COPLR 154
Sep 29, 2018, 21:32 PM
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article :
Prioritise In Trending Articles :
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.