header-logo header-logo

06 January 2011 / Ed Mitchell
Issue: 7447 / Categories: Features , Community care
printer mail-detail

Protecting the vulnerable

Ed Mitchell provides an update from the Court of Protection

Under Rule 157 of the Court of Protection Rules, the general rule in personal welfare proceedings is that there shall be no order as to costs. Rule 159 provides that the general rule may be departed from where “the circumstances so justify” and goes on to list factors that are to be taken into account in deciding if departure is justified. The factors include the conduct of the parties. Two recent decisions provide examples of when it may be permissible to depart from the general rule and make a costs order against a party.

In the Matter of RC (Deceased) (Case no 11639140) was a decision of Judge Lush, the senior judge of the Court of Protection. The ruling will be of particular interest to local authorities involved in disputes with the relatives of vulnerable adults about how they should be cared for. If such disputes are resolved by way of Court of Protection proceedings, significant resources can be expended and so the authority

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll