Application in respect of costs within proceedings brought under Section 21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was dismissed.
The applicant, the P by the Official Solicitor as Litigation Friend, submitted that this is a case where it is appropriate to depart from the usual costs rule and to order the costs of a hearing be paid by the Respondent, The London Borough of Harrow, because of the Respondent's consistent failure to offer a trial period at home before the start of and for the duration of the proceedings, and its decision to do so only after the hearing had commenced.
The court dismissed the application. On balance and considering the circumstances as a whole, the court was not persuaded that it was appropriate to depart from the general rule on this occasion. The Respondent's conduct fell short, to what degree is immaterial, of the necessary test. This case did not represent a blatant disregard of the processes of the Act and the Respondent's obligation to respect BP's rights under ECHR as in the Manchester case.
Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii
Case summaries on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available.
Support the Hub
This site is free to access but if you find it useful then please consider a contribution by way of support for our work. Click here to contribute.
Sign up for our free email alert
We do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time
More from Bath Publishing