EG v RS & Ors

EG v RS & Ors

EG's application was ill-judged and misconceived due to clear conflict of interest and lack of impartiality; District Judge Owen's costs order was a proper exercise of discretion under Rule 159, justified by EG's conduct in pursuing an application she ought to have known would fail.

Parties
Appellant: EG; Respondent: RS; Respondent: JS; Respondent: BEN PCT
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and refused in part.
Legal Topics
Appointment of Deputy, Conflict of Interest, Costs Orders, Professional Conduct
Mental Capacity Court of Protection Costs Appointment of Deputy Conflict of Interest Costs Orders Professional Conduct

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EG

Appellant

RS

Respondent

JS

Respondent

BEN PCT

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded against EG for her failed application to be appointed Health & Welfare Deputy of RS
  2. 2 Whether the costs order should be limited to the hearing date or cover the application generally
  3. 3 Whether costs should be payable by EG personally or her firm

Ratio Decidendi

EG's application was ill-judged and misconceived due to clear conflict of interest and lack of impartiality; District Judge Owen's costs order was a proper exercise of discretion under Rule 159, justified by EG's conduct in pursuing an application she ought to have known would fail.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and refused in part.

Orders

  • Appeal against costs order regarding BEN PCT allowed by consent.
  • Appeal regarding costs of JS allowed only as to costs other than those of 25th August 2009.