LB v Croydon District Health Authority (No 2)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1995 |
| Date | 1995 |
| Year | 1995 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
NEILL, HOFFMANN AND HENRY, L JJ
Costs – Official Solicitor – patient unsuccessfully applying that she should not be fed by tube to save her life – Official Solicitor acting as amicus curiae – Judge ordering health authority to pay half of the costs of the Official Solicitor – whether this was a proper exercise of judicial discretion.
Costs – proceedings by patient against health authority – unsuccessful appeal to Court of Appeal by patient – patient legally aided – whether health authority could claim Court of Appeal costs against patient – liability of Legal Aid Board.
Official Solicitor – acting as amicus curiae – issue between patient and health authority – judicial discretion to order payment by party of Official Solicitor's costs.
In July 1994 Thorpe, J dismissed an application by the applicant, a patient in the care of the defendant health authority under the Mental Health Act 1983, for an injunction restraining the defendant from feeding her by tube without her consent: LB v Croydon District Health Authority[1995] 1 FCR 332 (FD). The Judge ordered the defendant health authority to pay one-half of the costs of the Official Solicitor. The patient appealed against the substantive decision of Thorpe, J That appeal was dismissed on 29 November 1994: LB v Croydon District Health Authority[1995] 1 FCR 662 (CA).
The health authority appealed against the order as to costs, arguing that there should be no order in respect of the Official Solicitor's costs. The health authority relied on the fact that it had not brought the original proceedings, that the Judge himself has instructed the Official Solicitor to obtain a psychiatric report, and that it was against the public interest to deter parties by cost considerations from seeking a declaration in difficult cases. It argued that the Judge had exercised his discretion on the wrong basis in that it was the Official Solicitor, whose function it was to act as amicus curiae and who should be awarded costs in exceptional circumstances only.
As to costs in the Court of Appeal, the Official Solicitor had made no application but the health authority argued that an order should be made against the patient (not to be enforced without leave of the court) and that any costs remaining unpaid should be paid by the Legal Aid Board under s 18 of the Legal Aid Act 1988.
Held – (1) In ordering the health authority to pay half of the Official Solicitor's costs the Judge had acted within his discretion. There was no error of principle. The Judge was fully
entitled to act as he did and the appeal against his decision would be dismissed.
(2) As to the question of costs in the Court of Appeal, although it was often appropriate in proceedings of this nature to make no order for costs at first instance, when the matter came to the Court of Appeal there was no reason why the health authority should not be entitled to claim costs. It was just and equitable in the present case for the Court of...
To continue reading
Request your trial