Six years, three judges, £350,000 in costs to the taxpayer... and no change: Judge hits out at 'astonishing' cost of Court of Protection case
High court judge hits out at legal costs as family fights council decision for six years
Emily Dugan is social affairs correspondent for The Independent, i and Independent on Sunday. She was previously a news reporter for The Independent on Sunday. Her investigations into human trafficking have twice been awarded Best Investigative Article at the Anti-Slavery Day Media Awards and her human rights journalism was shortlisted for the Gaby Rado Memorial prize at the 2012 Amnesty Media Awards.
Friday 11 October 2013
A High Court Judge has hit out at the “astonishing” cost of a six year legal battle in the Court of Protection which ended today after all parties agreed a woman should stay in care.
The parents of a woman with severe learning difficulties originally applied to the court in 2007 because they wanted her to be cared for at home, rather than at a facility more than 80 miles away.
The local authority argued the parents’ home was not suitable and presented evidence of successive serious house fires and threats of arson as well as allegations of a family feud and criminal activity by relatives.
But last week, after pursuing a case which cost the public at least £350,000 in legal fees for three different teams of lawyers, the family backed down and accepted the local authority’s decision.
The woman, who is referred to in court documents as ‘ED’, is in her thirties and only able to communicate through sign language. She is currently being looked after in a care home by those who know sign language.
Over the course of the protracted case, which was overseen by three different judges, the family changed their position several times until eventually agreeing last week that she could be looked after in residential care after all.
There were four house fires at the family home in early 2009, the last of which caused extensive damage to the house. The police were also called by ED’s brother in January this year, claiming a gang of four men were outside holding petrol cans and shouting that they would burn the house down. Four days later a car outside the house was set on fire, though the parents say they have no idea why.
The Local Authority was not initially told about the fires, meaning they did not provide the necessary vibrating fire alarm system for ED straight away. This was part of their argument as to why the family home was unsafe for her.
Whether or not ED’s pubic hair could be removed was another point which generated lengthy legal discussions. The final judgement says her parents - who argued it was Muslim custom - are not allowed to remove her pubic hair or help her to do so. Their time with their daughter will also now be supervised by carers.
In his judgement, Mr Justice Wood said the case had cost an “astonishing” amount and generated a “great morass of paper”. The judge described how its various elements amounted to almost 2,000 pages of paperwork, including witness statements running to 740 pages.
He said: “By the time the case came before me in February 2013 (listed as a final hearing) the quantity of paper generated in this phase of the proceedings can only be described as inordinate.”
In August ED’s parents decided they no longer wanted to try and get their daughter returned home and instead sought for her to be moved to a closer care home. Then, just over a week ago the judge was informed, having already spent two days reading into the case, that the parents were prepared to agree with the local authorities wishes after all.
Mr Justice Wood said there was “no explanation for this volte-face” and that he remained “utterly baffled by the course this litigation has taken, and perplexed by this lack of clarity in their case.”
The Local Authority spent approximately £138,000 on legal costs since October 2011, while the parents’ costs amounted to £82,000, and the Official Solicitor’s ran to around £130,000.
Commenting on the costs involved in the case, Mr Justice Wood said: “This is an astonishing sum of money to spend on one case. ED, Mr. D and Mrs. D have all had their legal expenses met from public funds. Particularly when one considers the nature of the case for the parents, and that the ultimate resolution... is that the parents have, ultimately with their own “consent,” agreed to Orders which dismiss any hope of ED coming to live with them and a significant reduction in her contact to them.”
The case was heard in private in the Court of Protection, which makes major care and medical decisions on behalf of those deemed to lack mental capacity. The Independent was able to report it after lengthy applications to attend.
- 1 'Women should not laugh in public,' says Turkey's Deputy Prime Minister in morality speech
- 2 The secret report that helps Israel hide facts
- 3 Is Ebola coming to Britain? UK health officials issue warning to doctors as outbreak fears grow
- 4 Richard Dawkins says 'date rape is bad, stranger rape is worse' on Twitter
- 5 Danish TV reporter is all business up top, all party down below
The secret report that helps Israel hide facts
A day in the life of Vladimir Putin: The dictator in his labyrinth
Woman and two children killed by mob in riots over 'blasphemous' Facebook post in Pakistan
Putin is 'thuggish, dishonest and reckless', says British ambassador to US
Boozy, ignorant, intolerant, but very polite – Britain as others see us
A new Russian revolution: The cracks are starting to appear in Putin’s Kremlin power bloc
- < Previous
- Next >
Competitive: The Green Recruitment Company: The Organisation: The Green Recrui...
£350 - £400 per annum + competitive: Orgtel: Project Manager (specializing in ...
£40000 - £50000 per annum + competitive: Progressive Recruitment: Embedded Sof...
£50000 - £65000 per annum + Benefits: Progressive Recruitment: Working for a m...