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
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
View all articles
Authors

COSTS: A and S v Lancashire County Council [2013] EWHC 851 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:04 PM
Slug : costs-a-and-s-v-lancashire-county-council-2013-ewhc-851-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 24, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 102277

(Family Division, Peter Jackson J, 17 April 2013)

In the substantive proceedings freeing orders in relation to the two children, now statutory orphans, were discharged and declarations were made pursuant to s 7(1) (b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 that Lancashire County Council and the Independent Reviewing Officer had breach the rights of the boys under Arts 8, 6 and 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950. A costs statement of £210,734.57 was served on behalf of the children.

The submission of the local authority, that these were family proceedings was accepted and, therefore, that FPR 28.1 applied and required a just order without applying the general rule that costs followed the event.

The local authority's conduct in relation to the children over many years had been blatantly unlawful and reprehensible and led inexorably to substantial litigation. There was therefore, no question that the local authority's conduct had been so unreasonable to the extent that it should pay the children's costs. 

 

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