header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
16 November 2012
Issue: 7538 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Court of Protection—Practice—Costs

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

NHS Trust v D (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) [2012] EWHC 886 (COP), [2012] All ER (D) 171 (Apr)

Court of Protection, Peter Jackson J, 17 April 2012

The Court of Protection Rules 2007 have not affected the long-standing practice of the court exercising its discretion to make orders requiring NHS trusts to pay half the costs of the Official Solicitor in proceedings regarding the withdrawal of medical treatment.

Victoria Butler-Cole for the trust. Christopher Johnston QC for D.

D was a patient who had been in a permanent vegetative state since July 2011. The NHS trust who was treating him applied for declarations authorising the removal of medical treatment from him. The application was supported by all concerned with D’s welfare, and was allowed by the court (see [2012] EWHC 885 (COP)). The official solicitor, who had acted as D’s litigation friend at the court’s request, applied for an order that the trust should pay half of his costs. The application was opposed by the trust, who argued that

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll