Our articles are written by experts in their field and include barristers, solicitors, judges, mediators, academics and professionals from a range of related disciplines. Family Law provides a platform for debate for all the important topics, from divorce and care proceedings to transparency and access to justice. If you would like to contribute please email editor@familylaw.co.uk.
Spotlight
A day in the life Of...
Zahra Pabani
Zahra Pabani
Partner - Family Law
Read on
Re CZ (Human Rights Claim: Costs) [2017] EWFC 11
Date:21 FEB 2017
Third slide
Law Reporter

(Family Court, Cobb J, 16 February 2017)

Costs – Human rights claim – Public funding – Award of damages – Statutory charging order under LASPO 2012 – Appropriate costs award

Costs orders were made in Children Act 1989 and Human Rights Act 1998 proceedings.

When the child was just one week old and still in hospital the local authority was granted an interim care order and he was placed with the paternal grandparents. The parents both had mild global learning difficulties and had been supported by adult services but no pre-birth referral to children’s services had been made. Two and a half months later the child was returned to the parents’ care where he had successfully remained ever since.

The parents and the child applied for declarations and damages under the Human Rights Act 1989 in respect of breaches to their Art 6 and Art 8 rights under the European Convention. The Children Act 1989 proceedings had been formally dismissed. The claimants also sought a costs award in relation to those and the HRA 1998 proceedings.

At a case management hearing the Local Authority conceded that declarations should be made that: the parents and child’s right to a fair trial pursuant to Art 6 of the European Convention had been breached by the failure to inform them of the initial hearing; the parents’ and child’s right to family life enshrined in Art 8 of the European Convention had been breached when the child was placed with the paternal grandparents. It was agreed that a sum of £3,750 was appropriate compensation to award the three claimants. The local authority also offered to pay the costs of the Children Act 1989 proceedings and £2,000 per claimant towards the costs of the Human Rights Act 1998 proceedings (later increased to £2,500). At that stage the parties were strongly encouraged to negotiate realistically.

Following a round table meeting the only issue left outstanding was that of costs. To date the claimants’ costs amounted to just under £80,000 while the local authority costs were £40,000.

Since the claimants were publicly funded any damages awarded to them would be absorbed by a statutory charge under s 25 of LASPO 2012. Cobb J noted that it was regrettable that the claimants were unlikely to obtain the amounts awarded to them due to the costs involved. However, the wide discretion afforded to the court did not mandate the power to make a substantive award of costs just so that the claimants benefited from the award.

On the ordinary costs principles the claimants should be awarded their costs of the HRA 1998 proceedings up to the date of the case management hearing at which stage the local authority had accepted the declarations and made an open proposal to settle and at which time the claimants were encouraged to reach an agreement. The litigation conduct of the claimants was such that they had forfeited their right to recover the full amount of costs in respect of those proceedings. In addition they were entitled to the costs involved with the Children Act 1989 proceedings.


Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWFC 11

Case No: LS15C00749

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT LEEDS
SITTING AT SHEFFIELD

Family Court
50 West Barr
Sheffield S3 8PH


Date: 16/02/2017

Before:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE COBB

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

AZ (mother)
BZ (father)
CZ (child by his Children’s Guardian)
Applicants

- and -

KIRKLEES COUNCIL
Respondent

Re CZ (Human Rights Claim: Costs)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ms. Sara Anning (instructed by Eaton Smith LLP) for AZ, the mother, submitted a Skeleton Argument jointly with the father and Guardian but did not, with permission, attend the hearing
Mr. Alex Taylor (instructed by Ridley & Hall) for BZ, the father
Ms. Julia Nelson (instructed by Jordans) for CZ, the child
Ms. Gillian Irving QC and Ms. Clare Garnham (instructed by Local Authority Solicitor) for the Local Authority

Hearing date: 8 February 2017

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judgment Approved 

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.


Re CZ (Human Rights Claim Costs) [2017] EWFC 11.rtf
Family Law Reports
Family Law Reports
"The unrivalled and authoritative source of...
£509.99
Emergency Remedies in the Family Courts
Emergency Remedies in the Family Courts
"A very good tool for the busy family lawyer"...
£519.99
Family Court Practice, The
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2019 edition due out in May
£559.99