This case involved an application in respect of costs within proceedings brought under Section 21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
BP lives with vascular dementia and depression, with a history of a stroke in 2013 and various physical ailments. There were reports of challenging behaviour, including verbal and physical aggression to carers and BP’s family. BP was placed in a care home on 3 May 2017 and a final order was made on 24 April 2019, however there was a dispute between the parties in respect of costs.
BP, by the Official Solicitor as Litigation Friend, made an application for an order that the Respondent, The London Borough of Harrow, pay the costs of a hearing because of the Respondent’s consistent failure to offer a trial period at home before the start of, and for the duration of, the proceedings, and its decision to do so only after the hearing had commenced.
The court dismissed the application, stating that it was not persuaded that it was appropriate to depart from the general rule of no order as to costs on this occasion. The Respondent’s conduct fell short of the necessary test. This case did not represent a blatant disregard of the processes of the Act and the Respondent’s obligation to respect BP’s rights under ECHR as in the case of Manchester City Council v G, E and F [2010] EWHC 3385.
The full judgment can be read here.
If you have any questions regarding this summary case law please contact Julie here.