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
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...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
View all articles
Authors

COSTS: Sharma & Judkins v Hunter [2011] EWHC 2546 (COP), [2012] COPLR 166

Sep 29, 2018, 21:32 PM
Slug : 2011ewhc2546cop
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 29, 2012, 02:40 AM
Article ID : 98945

(Court of Protection, Henderson J, 7 October 2011)

The man made substantial cash gifts to a woman who had been caring for him. The man's daughter brought proceedings to set aside those gifts on the grounds of undue influence. The carer applied to the court for a determination of the man's capacity to decide whether the proceedings should continue. The court found the man did not have capacity for those purposes and the daughter applied for a costs order against the carer on an indemnity basis. The carer was ordered to pay her own costs and pay 75% of the daughter's costs based on her failure to comply with court directions.

The proceedings were settled by a Tomlin order which also compromised the carer's liability to pay the daughter's costs. The daughter sought a wasted costs order against the carer's solicitors.

The procedure for making a wasted costs order in the Court of Protection was the same as in the High Court. A wasted costs order could not be made once the proceedings were at an end and the Tomlin order effectively concluded the Court of Protection proceedings.

Categories :
  • Court of Protection
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from