England and Wales Case Law

Andrew James Riddle v NA

The District Judge erred in law by failing to structure his discretion within the framework of Part 19 of the Court of Protection Rules. However, on reconsideration, the court found that, although Mr Riddle acted in good faith, NA was successful in defending the application, did not invite the litigation, and should not bear the costs. The circumstances justified departing from the general rule; thus, no order for costs was appropriate.

Source excerpt

• Costs
• Deputyship
• Capacity assessment
• Court of protection rules

Read case analysis

MacPherson v Sunderland City Council (Rev1)

MacPherson v Sunderland City Council (Rev1) [2024] EWCA Civ 1579 (18 December 2024)

The Court of Appeal made an interim declaration that the appellant may lack litigation capacity, referred capacity issues to the High Court, and adjourned the appeal.

• Litigation capacity
• Interim declarations
• Committal for contempt
• Mental capacity act 2005
• Court of protection rules
• Litigation-capacity

Read case analysis

P (Statutory Will), Re (Costs Application)

The deputy’s fundamental misunderstanding and unreasonable contesting of the notification requirements under PD9E, despite clear advice and case law, justified a departure from the general rule on costs. The deputy is ordered to pay P’s costs incurred by the Official Solicitor from 4 July 2023, and to bear his own costs from the same date.

Source excerpt

• Costs
• Statutory wills
• Notification of beneficiaries
• Court of protection rules

Read case analysis

P (Statutory Will), Re (Costs Application)

P (Statutory Will), Re (Costs Application) [2024] EWCOP 9 (19 February 2024)

The Court of Protection departed from the usual costs rule after finding the deputy unreasonably contested notification issues under Practice Direction 9E.

• Statutory will
• Notification of beneficiaries
• Costs orders
• Practice direction 9e
• Court of protection rules
• Court-of-protection

Read case analysis

Lincolnshire County Council v X & Ors

Lincolnshire County Council v X & Ors [2023] EWCOP 52 (19 July 2023)

The Court of Protection held that contempt proceedings should be heard in private to protect X's interests and secure justice, with anonymity for LB and MK left undecided.

• Open justice
• Private hearings
• Anonymity orders
• Article 6 echr
• Article 8 echr
• Article 10 echr

Read case analysis

SG, Re

SG, Re [2022] EWCOP 55 (23 December 2022)

The Court of Protection clarified that a Trustee Act order can provide sufficient authority for trustees to sell property, even where a deputy needs further court authority.

• Deputyship
• Trustee act 1925
• Authority to sell property
• Court of protection rules
• Court-of-protection
• Trustee-act

Read case analysis

Riddle v Parker Rhodes Hickmott Solicitors

Riddle v Parker Rhodes Hickmott Solicitors [2022] EWCOP 18 (03 May 2022)

Permission to appeal was refused in a Court of Protection dispute over a deputy’s remuneration and whether costs should be assessed by the SCCO rather than paid at fixed public authority rates.

• Remuneration of deputy
• Assessment of costs
• Best interests decision-making
• Court of protection rules
• Practice direction 19b
• Appeals procedure

Read case analysis

CB v Medway Council & Anor (Appeal)

CB v Medway Council & Anor (Appeal) [2019] EWCOP 5 (06 March 2019)

Appeal against summary dismissal of a Court of Protection application about CB’s residence and care was allowed because further enquiry was needed.

• Deprivation of liberty
• Best interests
• Summary judgment
• Article 5 echr
• Article 6 echr
• Court of protection rules

Read case analysis

X & Ors (Deprivation of Liberty)

Preliminary Court of Protection judgment on post-Cheshire West procedures for deprivation of liberty cases, setting out a streamlined, Article 5-compliant framework.

• Deprivation of liberty
• Article 5 echr
• Procedural safeguards
• Litigation friends
• Court of protection rules
• Judicial review

Read case analysis

Manchester City Council v G & Ors

Court of Appeal upheld a costs order in Court of Protection proceedings, finding Manchester City Council’s conduct justified departure from the usual no-order rule.

• Costs
• Deprivation of liberty
• Article 5 echr
• Article 8 echr
• Court of protection rules
• Court-of-protection-costs

Read case analysis