Riddle v NA [2025] EWCOP 39 (T3) (06 November 2025)

Riddle v NA [2025] EWCOP 39 (T3) (06 November 2025)

The District Judge erred in law by not structuring his discretion in accordance with the framework of Part 19 of the Court of Protection Rules. However, on reconsideration, the court held that it was justified to depart from the general rule that P pays costs, given that NA succeeded in defending the application, did not invite the litigation, and should not bear the costs burden. The fair and just order is no order as to costs.

Citation
[2025] EWCOP 39
Parties
Applicant: Andrew James Riddle; Respondent: NA; Attending (not a Party): City of York Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal (court of Protection) / Judgment on Appeal Against Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Costs in Court of Protection, Deputyship Applications, Capacity Assessments, Litigant in Person Costs
Mental Capacity Law Court of Protection Costs in Court of Protection Deputyship Applications Capacity Assessments Litigant in Person Costs

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 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

Attending (not a Party)

Procedural Posture

Appeal (court of Protection) / 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 on costs
  3. 3 Whether the general rule that P pays costs should apply when the application for deputyship fails

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge erred in law by not structuring his discretion in accordance with the framework of Part 19 of the Court of Protection Rules. However, on reconsideration, the court held that it was justified to depart from the general rule that P pays costs, given that NA succeeded in defending the application, did not invite the litigation, and should not bear the costs burden. The fair and just order is no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; no order as to costs.

Orders

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