THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL FOR PERMANENCE ORDERS IN RESPECT OF THE CHILDREN AB AND CD v. WX AND YZ [2014] ScotSC 39 (28 May 2014)

THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL FOR PERMANENCE ORDERS IN RESPECT OF THE CHILDREN AB AND CD v. WX AND YZ [2014] ScotSC 39 (28 May 2014)

Although the Council was unsuccessful, the case was difficult and finely balanced, and the Council acted responsibly in bringing and conducting the proceedings. There was no substantial criticism of any party's conduct. Given these factors and the fact that the public purse would ultimately bear the costs, the appropriate order is no expenses due to or by any party.

Citation
[2014] ScotSC 39
Parties
Petitioner: The City of Edinburgh Council; First Respondent (mother): WX; Second Respondent (father): YZ
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Permanence Order Application (child Protection/family Law) / Judgment on Expenses Following Refusal of Permanence Orders
Outcome
No expenses due to or by any party.
Legal Topics
Permanence Orders, Award of Expenses, Judicial Discretion, Parental Rights, Children's Hearings
Family Law Child Protection Civil Procedure Permanence Orders Award of Expenses Judicial Discretion Parental Rights Children's Hearings

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The City of Edinburgh Council

Petitioner

WX

First Respondent (mother)

YZ

Second Respondent (father)

Procedural Posture

Permanence Order Application (child Protection/family Law) / Judgment on Expenses Following Refusal of Permanence Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether expenses should be awarded to the successful respondents after refusal of permanence orders
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the local authority in bringing and conducting the proceedings was responsible
  3. 3 Whether the general rule of expenses following success applies in permanence order cases

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Council was unsuccessful, the case was difficult and finely balanced, and the Council acted responsibly in bringing and conducting the proceedings. There was no substantial criticism of any party's conduct. Given these factors and the fact that the public purse would ultimately bear the costs, the appropriate order is no expenses due to or by any party.

Court Disposition

No expenses due to or by any party.

Orders

  • No expenses due to or by any party to the cause.
  • Professor Furnell certified as a skilled witness.