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  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 case first came before Mr. Justice Charles in Secretary of State for Justice v KC and C Partnership NHS Foundation Trust  UKUT 376 (AAC), in which a restricted patient lacked the capacity to consent to the conditions of his conditional discharge, his care package and any deprivation of his liberty that would arise.
The FTT were not invited to apply the conclusion reached in the KC case, as was requested. Charles J commented this leaves an unsatisfactory position for restricted patients that the Secretary of State would be reserving or simply not advancing and argument on their jurisdiction and may be considering the exercise of his power to direct a conditional discharge on the basis that the KC case was wrongly decided. This clearly causes problems and creates the possibility of time and money being wasted by patients, the tribunal, local authorities and the Court of Protection.
The appeal raises the point whether for the purposes of Article 5 ECtHR a restricted patient who has the capacity to do so can give a valid consent to the terms of a conditional discharge that, when it is implemented, will on an objective assessment create a deprivation of the patient's liberty.
The appeal was argued on the bases that:
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  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.
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
PB & RB (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) & London Borough of Haringey  EWCOP 12
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 an application by P for an order under section 21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 discharging the standard authorisation, which authorised a deprivation of liberty in his current accommodation.
The case was before District Judge Glentworth
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  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.
Case summaries 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.