Re CP; WBC v CP (2012) EWHC 1944 (COP), (2012) MHLO 144

LPM, the brother of CP (called C in the 'blue room' judgment) sought a costs order against the local authority. (1) The court should follow the general rule in welfare cases (that there be no order as to costs: rule 157) where it is appropriate, and it is only local authorities who have broken the law, or who are guilty of misconduct (that falls within rule 159) that have reason to fear a costs order (G v E). (2) The questions to be addressed are (a) is the departure from the general rule justified in all the circumstances, including the conduct of the parties, the outcome of the case and the role of the Applicant as a public body?; and (b) if so, what order should be made? (Neary). (3) The judge concluded that (a) the local authority's actions were tainted with illegality, (b) the local authority's decision making was impoverished and disorganised, (c) the local authority was responsible for the delay in referring CP's circumstances to the Court of Protection and/or the High Court in its children and inherent jurisdictions, and (d) the local authority could have arrived at the position concluded by the court many months earlier. (4) The local authority was ordered to pay LPM's costs to be assessed if not agreed.

Related judgments

Re CP; WBC v CP [2012] EWHC 1944 (COP), [2012] MHLO 144

• Re C; C v Wigan Borough Council [2011] EWHC 1539 (Admin)

Judgments cited:

• G v E [2010] EWHC 3385 (Fam)
• Re Steven Neary; LB Hillingdon v Steven Neary [2011] EWHC 3522 (COP)

External link

...