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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll