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
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...
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
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...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
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