header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
06 January 2011 / Ed Mitchell
Issue: 7447 / Categories: Features , Community care
printer mail-detail

Protecting the vulnerable

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll