Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
View all articles
Authors

COSTS/ VULNERABLE ADULT: Manchester City Council v G, E and F [2011] EWCA Civ 939

Sep 29, 2018, 17:48 PM
Slug : 2011EWCACiv939
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 24, 2011, 02:19 AM
Article ID : 95475

(Court of Appeal; Mummery and Hooper LJJ and McFarlane J; 2 August 2011)

A young adult was placed with foster carers as a child. There were concerns about some comments made by the vulnerable adult which led to a safeguarding referral, during which the vulnerable adult was removed from carer and placed in a residential unit.  The safeguarding investigation was inconclusive. The foster carer and young adult's sister applied to court for the adult's return to foster carer's home. The judge concluded that the adult was undoubtedly being deprived of liberty in the residential unit which was completely controlling the adult's movements and confining him to the unit unless escorted somewhere.  The deprivation was not done ‘in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law' and therefore in breach of Art 5 and also in breach of Art 8 in removing the adult from home without conducting any balancing exercise.  Eventually ordered the return to carer. The judge ordered the local authority to pay the costs of the foster carer and sister, including pre-litigation costs on an indemnity basis up to the first hearing and then 1/3 costs on standard basis thereafter.  The judge considered that the local authority's conduct amounted to misconduct justifying departure from the general rule and there was a ‘significant degree of unreasonableness' giving rise to liability for costs on indemnity basis.

Appeal dismissed.  

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from