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
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
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...
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
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