PP  EWCOP 29
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.
The attorneys had used the Patient's money to purchase property. The PG applied to have both LPAs for property and affairs and health and welfare revoked. The court ruled that just the LPA for property and affairs should be revoked. The issue of costs the arose. The Applicants submitted that the matter could have been decided on the papers were it not for the application of the PG and that some of their costs should be met by the PG or the Patient's estate. The PG submitted that the Applicants should pay their own costs but was not seeking their own costs.
The court ruled that the Applicants should be responsible in equal shares for their own costs of the application in relation to revocation of the LPA for property and affairs and that the Patient's costs should be paid by them in equal shares.
Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii
Comments are closed.
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
This site is published by Bath Publishing Limited
Manage your email preferences