Manchester City Council v G & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 939 (02 August 2011)

Manchester City Council v G & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 939 (02 August 2011)

The Court of Appeal held that the judge was entitled to depart from the general rule on costs due to the local authority's blatant disregard of statutory processes and ECHR rights, amounting to misconduct. The apportionment of indemnity and standard costs was justified by the authority's conduct, which unnecessarily prolonged and complicated proceedings.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 939
Parties
Appellant: Manchester City Council; 1st Respondent: G; 2nd Respondent: E (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor); 3rd Respondent: F
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Costs Order in Court of Protection
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs in Court of Protection, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, Article 5 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Indemnity and Standard Costs, Local Authority Duties
Public Law Mental Capacity Law Human Rights Costs in Court of Protection Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Article 5 ECHR Article 8 ECHR 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manchester City Council

Appellant

G

1st Respondent

E (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor)

2nd Respondent

F

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Costs Order in Court of Protection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in departing from the general rule on costs in personal welfare proceedings under Court of Protection Rules
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of Manchester City Council justified an order for indemnity and standard costs against it
  3. 3 Whether the apportionment of costs was appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge was entitled to depart from the general rule on costs due to the local authority's blatant disregard of statutory processes and ECHR rights, amounting to misconduct. The apportionment of indemnity and standard costs was justified by the authority's conduct, which unnecessarily prolonged and complicated proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Manchester City Council to pay the costs of G, F, and E (including pre-litigation costs) up to and including 14 January 2010 on an indemnity basis.
  • Manchester City Council to pay one third of the costs of G, F, and E from 15 January 2010 up to and including 6 May 2010 on a standard basis.