G v E & Ors

G v E & Ors

The local authority's blatant disregard of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 processes and E's rights under the ECHR, including failure to seek proper authorisation for deprivation of liberty and to involve family appropriately, amounted to significant unreasonableness and misconduct. This justified departing from the general rule on costs and awarding indemnity costs up to the first day of the main hearing, and standard costs thereafter, apportioned as specified.

Parties
Applicant: G; First Respondent: E (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor); Second Respondent: Manchester City Council; Third Respondent: F
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection Personal Welfare Application / Costs Determination Following Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Costs order against the local authority (Manchester City Council) in favour of G, F, and E, apportioned between indemnity and standard basis as specified.
Legal Topics
Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, Article 5 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Costs in Court of Protection, Indemnity and Standard Costs, Local Authority Duties
Mental Capacity Human Rights Public Law Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Article 5 ECHR Article 8 ECHR Costs in Court of Protection Indemnity and Standard Costs +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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G

Applicant

E (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor)

First Respondent

Manchester City Council

Second Respondent

F

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection Personal Welfare Application / Costs Determination Following Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the local authority should pay the costs of the proceedings and on what basis (indemnity or standard)
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the local authority justified a departure from the general rule on costs in personal welfare proceedings
  3. 3 Extent to which the local authority's actions necessitated the litigation and increased its complexity

Ratio Decidendi

The local authority's blatant disregard of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 processes and E's rights under the ECHR, including failure to seek proper authorisation for deprivation of liberty and to involve family appropriately, amounted to significant unreasonableness and misconduct. This justified departing from the general rule on costs and awarding indemnity costs up to the first day of the main hearing, and standard costs thereafter, apportioned as specified.

Court Disposition

Costs order against the local authority (Manchester City Council) in favour of G, F, and E, apportioned between indemnity and standard basis as specified.

Orders

  • Local authority to pay the costs of G, F, and E (including pre-litigation costs) up to and including 14 January 2010 on an indemnity basis.
  • Local authority to pay one third of the costs of G, F, and E from 14 January 2010 up to and including 6 May 2010 on a standard basis.