Andrew James Riddle v NA

Andrew James Riddle v NA

The District Judge erred in law by failing to structure his discretion within the framework of Part 19 of the Court of Protection Rules. However, on reconsideration, the court found that, although Mr Riddle acted in good faith, NA was successful in defending the application, did not invite the litigation, and should...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Andrew James Riddle; Respondent: NA; Interested Party: City of York Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; no order as to costs
Legal Topics
Costs, Deputyship, Capacity Assessment, Court of Protection Rules
Mental Capacity Civil Procedure Costs Deputyship Capacity Assessment Court of Protection Rules

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew James Riddle

Applicant

NA

Respondent

City of York Council

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Judge erred in law or discretion in refusing a costs order against NA
  2. 2 Proper application of Court of Protection Rules 2017 Part 19 regarding costs in property and affairs applications
  3. 3 Whether the general rule that costs be paid from P's estate should be departed from

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge erred in law by failing to structure his discretion within the framework of Part 19 of the Court of Protection Rules. However, on reconsideration, the court found that, although Mr Riddle acted in good faith, NA was successful in defending the application, did not invite the litigation, and should not bear the costs. The circumstances justified departing from the general rule; thus, no order for costs was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; no order as to costs

Orders

  • No order as to costs; each party to bear their own costs