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 complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
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,...
View all articles
Authors

COSTS/ VULNERABLE ADULT: Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2011] EWHC 1330 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 19:21 PM
Slug : 2011EWHC1330
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 12, 2012, 12:20 PM
Article ID : 97639

(Family Division; Moylan J; 21 December 2010)

Munby LJ reviewed deprivation of liberty law in respect of man, 38, with cerebral palsy and Down's Syndrome in residential home. The Local Authority sought costs against the man (represented by the Official Solicitor and publicly funded). The OS said there should be no order as to costs. Accepted that Court Of Protection rules did not apply to issue of appeal costs. Also that because appeal from COP not Family Division, CPR r 44.3(2) did not apply. General rule was therefore that, under CPR r 44.3(2), unsuccessful party (here man) had to pay costs. As the man was publicly funded the general rule would apply in context of Community Legal Service (Costs) Regulations 2000. Whether there should be no order as to costs because COP proceedings so analogous to family proceedings that were in reality indistinguishable from them. OS's argument close to an impermissible invitation to re-write CPR 44.3.  Court of Appeal could have regard to fact that case involved vulnerable adult, but only as one of circumstances, not because of any general principle in such cases.

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