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: 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