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:Re T (Costs: Care Proceedings: Serious Allegations Not Proved) [2012] UKSC 36

Sep 29, 2018, 18:20 PM
Slug : 2012ukcs36
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 30, 2012, 11:05 AM
Article ID : 99621

(Supreme Court, Lady Hale, Lord Phillips, Lord Mance, Lord Dyson, Lord Carnwath, 26 July 2012) 

A fact-finding hearing exonerated the father, grandparents and several other men of sexual abuse. The grandparents did not qualify for legal aid, incurred costs of £52,000 and so sought to recover their costs from the local authority.

The judge dismissed the application on the basis that the usual rule was no order for costs unless reprehensible conduct could be proved. In the Court of Appeal the appeal was allowed and it was held that the decision in Re J (Costs of Fact-Finding Hearing) [2009] EWCA Civ 1350, [2010] 1 FLR 1893 was favourable to the grandparents.

Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was granted and Cafcass and the Grandparents' Association intervened. The appeal was allowed on the basis that it would not interfere with the grandparents' entitlement to claim their costs. Justice did not demand that any deficiency in the provision of legal aid funding should be made up out of local authority funds. It was legitimate to have regard to the competing demands on the limited funds of local authorities. The general practice of not awarding costs in the absence of reprehensible conduct or an unreasonable stance accorded with the ends of justice.

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