Latest articles
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...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
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