A (A Patient), Re

A (A Patient), Re

Mr Fitzgerald's applications for committal and wasted costs were procedurally defective, legally groundless, and factually meritless. The general rule as to costs was dis-applied due to his unreasonable conduct, and costs were awarded against him on an indemnity basis. An extended civil restraint order was imposed to prevent further vexatious litigation. Interim charging orders were granted to secure payment of costs.

Parties
Patient: A; Applicant/respondent: Desmond Maurice Fitzgerald; Deputy for a: C; Solicitor for C: Frances Mary Theresa Hughes; Solicitors for C (until Replaced): Hughes Fowler Carruthers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection Proceedings / Judgment on Multiple Applications and Costs
Outcome
Applications for committal and wasted costs dismissed as totally without merit; costs awarded against Mr Fitzgerald; appeal against costs order allowed but costs awarded against Mr Fitzgerald; extended civil restraint order imposed; interim charging orders granted.
Legal Topics
Deputyship, Committal, Wasted Costs, Civil Restraint Orders, Charging Orders, Assessment of Capacity
Mental Capacity Civil Procedure Costs Deputyship Committal Wasted Costs Civil Restraint Orders Charging Orders +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Patient

Desmond Maurice Fitzgerald

Applicant/respondent

C

Deputy for a

Frances Mary Theresa Hughes

Solicitor for C

Hughes Fowler Carruthers

Solicitors for C (until Replaced)

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection Proceedings / Judgment on Multiple Applications and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Fitzgerald's applications for committal and wasted costs were valid
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded against Mr Fitzgerald
  3. 3 Whether the general rule as to costs should be dis-applied

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Fitzgerald's applications for committal and wasted costs were procedurally defective, legally groundless, and factually meritless. The general rule as to costs was dis-applied due to his unreasonable conduct, and costs were awarded against him on an indemnity basis. An extended civil restraint order was imposed to prevent further vexatious litigation. Interim charging orders were granted to secure payment of costs.

Court Disposition

Applications for committal and wasted costs dismissed as totally without merit; costs awarded against Mr Fitzgerald; appeal against costs order allowed but costs awarded against Mr Fitzgerald; extended civil restraint order imposed; interim charging orders granted.

Orders

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