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?

This case concerned long-running proceedings relating to a young man aged 26, M, and had been ongoing for two years. His parents E and A, whilst the court found they greatly loved their son, had, in an earlier judgment of Baker J, (Re M [2014] EWCOP 33] found that whilst M had ASD and a learning disability, his parents had fabricated his reaction to an MMR vaccination. They had claimed it had caused autism in M and had given many fabricated accounts as to his health, caused M to be subjected to unnecessary tests and interventions, failed in relation to dental treatment to obtain treatment and E as M’s deputy had controlled all aspects of his life and restricted access to him by number of professionals. The court found that these behaviours amounted to factitious disorder imposed on others and additionally E had a combination of personality disorders – narcissistic, histrionic and emotionally unstable.
​
The key issues in this judgment focused upon the identity of the deputy, deprivation of liberty, disclosure and publication of information relating to proceedings and some miscellaneous issues​.

This matter first came before Mr. Justice Keehan on 31 March 2015, when he gave Judgment in Trust A v X and A Local Authority [2015] EWHC 992 (Fam). It was decided then that D's parents could consent to his confinement and there was no deprivation of liberty (DOL) of D, who was then 15 years old.

When D turned 16 years old, Birmingham City Council ("the applicant") made an application for the court to determine:

(a)    Whether D was being deprived of his liberty in a residential placement; or
(b)    Whether D's voluntary accommodation pursuant to s.20 of the Children Act 1989 meant he could not be deprived of his liberty.

• The Official Solicitor accepted and agreed that the circumstances of D’s confinement satisfied Limb 1 of Storck. He submitted, however, that:
• D’s parents cannot consent to his confinement now that he has attained the age of 16 years; and
• The circumstances of his confinement are plainly and clearly imputable to the state via the acts of the applicant. The residential unit and the school D attends are paid for by the authority.
• The decision in Trust A v X was wrong insofar as it was held that D’s parents could consent to his confinement in Hospital when he was under 16 years of age (paras. 52-66 of that judgment)

The applicant relies on Trust A v X and submits there is clear authority that:

• a parent may in the exercise of their parental responsibility consent to the confinement of their child within the zone/scope of their parental responsibility;
• substituted consent may be given by an individual authorised to act on the parents behalf.

​This case concerns an application for an order that it would in the best interests of a young woman (CS), who lacks capacity, to undergo surgery to terminate her pregnancy. The hearing was before Mr. Justice Baker.

​This case involved an application by the Public Guardian for the court to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney for property and financial affairs under section 22(4)(b) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The case was before Senior Judge Lush

​This case involved an application, pursuant to sections 21A and 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, for a review of the standard authorisation granted in respect of RB, who was 74 years old, had dementia and was living in a residential care home. RB, her son, sought primarily an order that she be returned home with a robust package of care.

The case was before District Judge Eldergill.

​This case involved two linked appeals from an order of District Judge Glentworth dated 13 July 2015, (judgment reported as North Yorkshire County Council v MAG, GC and A Clinical Commissioning Group [2015] EWCOP 64). They were brought by North Yorkshire County Council (“NYCC”) and A Clinical Commissioning Group (“ACCG”) against the refusal of an application brought by NYCC for authorisation for the deprivation of liberty of a man (“MAG”) at the home where he has lived since 2006.

The appeal was heard by the Honourable Mr Justice Cobb.

​This was an application by a family member to be appointed as a joint deputy for property and affairs with the existing deputy, East Sussex County Council. The Council was unwilling to act jointly resulting in the applicant’s revised application to remove the Council as deputy and appoint him in its place.