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
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
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...
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