Application in respect of costs within proceedings brought under Section 21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was dismissed.

Costs were awarded against London Borough of Lambeth and the Lambeth Clinical Commissioning Group on the basis  a) that the proceedings should never have been brought and b) their conduct of the proceedings once commenced.

Costs were awarded against the LA after a dispute in which the LA alleged the mother had mismanaged the P's funds.

The LA was ordered to pay half of the Official Solicitor's costs because of the LA's failure to make a timely application to review the P's deprivation of liberty, thus necessitating the involvement of the OS.

A review of the P's deprivation of liberty was not made by the LA in accordance with a previous court order, leading to delays in arranging an alternative placement for him and also the involvement of the OS. The OS was seeking a costs order against the LA in the sum of over £25,000, saying that but for the conduct of the LA, the streamlined procedure may have been appropriate. There would therefore have been no need for the OS to act (and incur costs) at all. The involvement of the OS was necessary and appropriate primarily because of the conduct of the applicant authority in failing to make timely application for review; or alternatively because, having failed to make a timely application, the placement had broken down and an urgent move was required.

The court ordered the LA to pay half the costs incurred by the OS. The explanations for the failure to comply with the requirement to apply for review, in so far as any explanations had been offered, were wholly inadequate. However, the court was not persuaded that a timely application for review would have avoided the need for the Official Solicitor's involvement completely.

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii

A scathing judgment where the Judge made critical findings against the London Borough of Lambeth and Lambeth CCG for their handling of the repatriation of the P to Colombia.

Application against various costs orders made against the applicant  in relation to the P, his late aunt. The application was dismissed.

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​​Application for costs by the OS after a test case relating to DoLS was withdrawn.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.