EG v RS & Ors [2010] EWCOP 3073 (03 August 2010)

EG v RS & Ors [2010] EWCOP 3073 (03 August 2010)

The District Judge correctly exercised discretion in awarding costs against EG because her application for appointment as deputy was ill-judged and misconceived due to an obvious conflict of interest, and it was unreasonable for her to pursue it to a contested hearing. The general rule of no order as to costs in welfare proceedings was properly departed from due to her conduct. The costs order should be against her firm, not her personally, by consent.

Citation
[2010] EWCOP 3073
Parties
Appellant: EG; Respondent: RS; Respondent: JS; Respondent: BEN PCT
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Order of District Judge in Court of Protection / Permission to Appeal and Appeal Against Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Costs in Welfare Proceedings, Professional Conflict of Interest, Appointment of Deputies, Appeals Procedure
Court of Protection Costs Costs in Welfare Proceedings Professional Conflict of Interest Appointment of Deputies Appeals Procedure

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EG

Appellant

RS

Respondent

JS

Respondent

BEN PCT

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Order of District Judge in Court of Protection / Permission to Appeal and Appeal Against Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded against a professional applicant for deputyship in welfare proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the District Judge erred in principle or exceeded discretion in making a costs order against the applicant
  3. 3 Whether the costs order should be against the individual or her firm

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge correctly exercised discretion in awarding costs against EG because her application for appointment as deputy was ill-judged and misconceived due to an obvious conflict of interest, and it was unreasonable for her to pursue it to a contested hearing. The general rule of no order as to costs in welfare proceedings was properly departed from due to her conduct. The costs order should be against her firm, not her personally, by consent.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • Appeal allowed by consent as to BEN PCT costs order; permission to appeal and appeal allowed as to costs of JS except for costs of 25 August hearing; costs order to be against EG's firm, not EG personally; appeal refused as to costs of Official Solicitor and JS for 25 August hearing; permission to appeal refused for...