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 Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
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,...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
View all articles
Authors

COSTS:Re D (Costs) [2012] EWHC 886 (COP), [2012] COPLR 499

Sep 29, 2018, 18:29 PM
Slug : 2012ewhc886cop
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 18, 2012, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 100561

(Court of Protection, Peter Jackson J, 17 April 2012)

In proceedings where a declaration of lawfulness in relation to the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment was sought, the Official Solicitor applied for a costs order that the NHS Trust pay half of his costs, amounting to £16,000.

The general rule in Court of Protection proceedings was that there should be no order for costs. However, long-standing authority demonstrated a practice where the starting point for costs orders in relation to the Official Solicitor was to award half of his costs unless there was good reason to depart from that rule. There were no special factors in this case so the application was granted.

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