Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
View all articles

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 :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from