Application by a professional deputy to continue as deputy for many Patients and to be remunerated according to existing ACO orders. Charles J ordered that the COP review all of the orders and that the existing ones be set aside.
Application for costs by the OS after a test case relating to DoLS was withdrawn. Application refused.
Application for the revocation of both LPAs after the attorneys used the Patient's money to buy a property. The LPA PA was revoked, the LPA HW was not.
Case in which the court had to decide who was reponsible for costs incurred as a result of the successful application by the PG to have the attorneys' LPA for property and financial affairs revoked. The attorneys were ordered to share their own costs.
Application by local authority to recover monies and costs through triggering of a bond taken out by E, P's parent, who was acting as Deputy at the time the bond was taken out. Application refused.
Charles J considered an application that part of the applicant’s costs be paid by the Respondents on an indemnity basis. The court ruled that departure from the rule 'no order as to costs' was not justified in this case.
This judgment should be read in conjunction with the reported judgment on this case at  EWCOP 21.
This judgment relates to the costs incurred in relation to very lengthy proceedings. The Local Authority costs were £150,000 and M, the P, through the Official Solicitor were £300,000 plus.
Given the general rule in the Court of Protection (Health and Welfare - no order as to costs unless significant litigation conduct has been proved) how should costs be considered in this particular case?
The Patient’s (‘P’) daughter, Stephanie, applied to the court to be appointed deputy for P’s property and affairs jointly and severally with her sister Susan.
This case concerns an application by the Public Guardian to revoke an LPA for property and financial affairs and for an order that a panel deputy be invited to make an application to be appointed as deputy with one of the attorneys, ICL being directed to provide all details of ARL’s financial affairs and in particular proceeds of the sale of her house.
The person who drew up the LPA and acted as certificate provider (Lyn Parkin) sought to be a party to the proceedings on the basis that the LPA should be revoked and that she and JJT (daughter of ARL) and herself be appointed as co-deputies, ICL be accountable for his actions and reimburse his mother’s estate in full. The application to be joined was granted as was the full application made by Lyn Parkin.
Two of the Patient’s daughters, MA and PB applied to the court to be appointed deputies for P’s property and affairs and this application was granted on 4th June 2014 by an authorised court officer.
On 27th January 2015 P’s youngest daughter, DC, applied to the court for appeal of the order so that all P’s children could be appointed for not just property and affairs but to personal welfare as well, naming her other two siblings, TT and ST as applicants as well.
The court treated DC’s application as a reconsideration of the order rather than an appeal.
Case summaries & Editor's comments on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available.
Get the latest cases & news delivered to your inbox with our free email updates.