A (A Patient), Re [2016] EWCOP 38 (10 August 2016)

A (A Patient), Re [2016] EWCOP 38 (10 August 2016)

Mr Fitzgerald's applications for committal and wasted costs were procedurally defective, wholly without factual or legal merit, and constituted an abuse of process. His conduct throughout the litigation was unreasonable, obsessive, and caused unnecessary costs. The general rule on costs was dis-applied, and costs were awarded against him on the indemnity or standard basis as appropriate. An extended civil restraint order was justified to prevent further vexatious litigation.

Citation
[2016] EWCOP 38
Parties
Applicant/respondent (various Applications): Desmond Maurice Fitzgerald; Respondent (committal Application): Frances Mary Theresa Hughes; Respondent (wasted Costs Application): Hughes Fowler Carruthers; Applicant (costs Applications): C (A's deputy)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection Proceedings (multiple Applications) / Judgment on Costs, Committal, Wasted Costs, and Restraint Order Applications
Outcome
Applications by Mr Fitzgerald for committal and wasted costs dismissed as totally without merit; costs orders made against Mr Fitzgerald; extended civil restraint order imposed.
Legal Topics
Court of Protection Costs, Committal for Contempt, Wasted Costs, Civil Restraint Orders, Deputyship, Capacity Assessment
Mental Capacity Law Civil Procedure Costs Law Court of Protection Costs Committal for Contempt Wasted Costs Civil Restraint Orders Deputyship +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Desmond Maurice Fitzgerald

Applicant/respondent (various Applications)

Frances Mary Theresa Hughes

Respondent (committal Application)

Hughes Fowler Carruthers

Respondent (wasted Costs Application)

C (A's deputy)

Applicant (costs Applications)

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection Proceedings (multiple Applications) / Judgment on Costs, Committal, Wasted Costs, and Restraint Order Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Fitzgerald's applications for committal and wasted costs were valid and had merit
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded against Mr Fitzgerald and on what basis
  3. 3 Whether an extended civil restraint order should be imposed on Mr Fitzgerald

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Fitzgerald's applications for committal and wasted costs were procedurally defective, wholly without factual or legal merit, and constituted an abuse of process. His conduct throughout the litigation was unreasonable, obsessive, and caused unnecessary costs. The general rule on costs was dis-applied, and costs were awarded against him on the indemnity or standard basis as appropriate. An extended civil restraint order was justified to prevent further vexatious litigation.

Court Disposition

Applications by Mr Fitzgerald for committal and wasted costs dismissed as totally without merit; costs orders made against Mr Fitzgerald; extended civil restraint order imposed.

Orders

  • Mr Fitzgerald to pay Ms Hughes's costs of the committal application on the indemnity basis, summarily assessed at £55,000 (inclusive of VAT).
  • Mr Fitzgerald to pay Hughes Fowler Carruthers' costs of the wasted costs application on the indemnity basis, summarily assessed at £37,000 (inclusive of VAT).