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
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
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