​JBN, Re [2019] EWCOP 62

Application for costs where the Public Guardian had sought orders to replace the applicant as attorney and the original suspension of the LPA had been overturned. An order for 50% of costs was made.

The Public Guardian had been concerned that DN had sold his father’s home, jeopardising the father’s care costs. DN opposed the application saying that his father had capacity at the time but a district judge suspended the LPA in 2017. This decision was overturned by HHJ Marin in June 2019 and the costs application followed.  

He made an order allowing that the PG should pay 50% of DN’s costs and justified the decision to deviate from the general rule for a variety of reasons including that

1. the PG should have been aware of that the evidence that the father lacked capacity was weak but instead was “content to commence proceedings solely on the basis of the desk-top evaluation of the case carried out by an investigator.”
2. he was concerned that the Public Guardian sought orders of a very serious nature without notice. At the very least DN should have been on notice with regards to the interim applications as that may have prevented the escalation in litigation that ensued.
3. the judge did however conclude that the PG had been entitled to refuse an offer to settle as DN had not addressed the real issues of concern, namely the father’s capacity and what was to become of the proceeds of sale of the property.

Read the full judgment on Bailli