G (Adult), Re
2014
COURT OF PROTECTION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- SIR JAMES MUNBY PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF PROTECTION
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
COURT OF PROTECTION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
ANL's application to join proceedings concerning G was dismissed as misconceived. The court ordered ANL to pay 30% of the costs of both the local authority and the Official Solicitor, citing the public importance of the issues and the stance adopted beforehand by the Official Solicitor as factors. The legal principles highlighted include the general rule that there will be no order as to costs in personal welfare proceedings and the court's discretion to depart from this rule if justified.
Judgment
Sir James Munby, President of the Court of Protection :
These are personal welfare proceedings in the Court of Protection. They relate to an elderly lady, G, who is 94 years old. She is represented by the Official Solicitor as her litigation friend. The proceedings were launched, in circumstances I describe below, by the London Borough of Redbridge. The two other parties to the proceedings are G’s two carers, C and F. I have before me an application by Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), publishers of the Daily Mail.
The background is described in some detail by Russell J in a judgment handed down on 26 February 2014: The London Borough of Redbridge v G and others [2014] EWHC 485 (COP) . The judgment is in the public domain and available to all on the BAILII website. Russell J described (para 39) how the litigation had begun with an application by the local authority to the High Court under the inherent jurisdiction (FD13P02067), the local authority taking the view that, although G was a vulnerable adult, she did not lack capacity. That view was put in question when the matter came before His Honour Judge Clifford Bellamy (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) on 14 November 2013. The issue of capacity thereafter fell to be determined by Russell J at a hearing on 17-18 February 2014. In her judgment, Russell J found (para 82) that, on the balance of probabilities, G lacked capacity under sections 2 and 3 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and accordingly that the case fell under the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection. She added that she did not consider it necessary to rule on any application under the inherent jurisdiction. It was in consequence of this that the local authority issued the application in the Court of Protection (124555450).
On 17 February 2014 Russell J had made a reporting restriction order in the High Court. It was in fairly standard form. So far as still relevant for present purposes it prohibited the identification of G, C and F. In her judgment she explained why (paras 89-92). The order referred to by Russell J in para 91 was made on 18 February 2014.
On 18 March 2014 the local authority made an application seeking:
“an order forbidding C and F, whether by themselves or instructing or encouraging others, from making any decision on behalf of or in relation to G (other than those in relation to day to day care) without first discussing the same with G’s litigation friend / litigation friend’s representative.”
The a