V (Second Respondent in the main proceedings) v Associated Newspapers Ltd and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Charles J |
| Judgment Date | 14 June 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWCOP 29 |
| Court | Court of Protection |
| Docket Number | COP1278226 |
| Date | 14 June 2016 |
[2016] EWCOP 29
IN THE COURT OF PROTECTION
(Sitting in public)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Charles
COP1278226
In the Matter of proceedings brought by Kings College NHS Foundation Trust concerning C (who died on 28 November 2015)
Richard Spearman QC, Vikram SachdevaQC andVictoria Butler-Cole (instructed by Bindmans LLP) for the Applicant
Adam Wolanski (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP) for the Respondents (on 9 December 2015)
Hearing date: 9 December 2015
Opening remarks
My judgment in this case is reported at [2016] EWCOP 21.
As the Applicant indicated might be the case she makes an application that part of her costs be paid by the Respondents on an indemnity basis. The application has been made and resisted on written submissions.
I refuse it and direct that, as provided for by Rule 157 of the Court of Protection Rules, there will be no order as to costs. In my view, departure from that rule is not justified in this case.
In the best traditions of their professions the Applicant's legal representatives represented her pro bono following the withdrawal of public funding by the Legal Aid Agency on the evening of 8 December 2015. However, no order for costs is sought for the period from 5pm on 8 December 2015 because of a reciprocal agreement reached with the Respondents not to seek costs of the hearing on 9 December 2015.
Prior to the withdrawal of public funding work had been carried out on a pro bono basis by Richard Spearman QC and Victoria Butler-Cole in respect of this application, which related to the imposition of reporting restrictions.
I am very grateful to the Applicant's legal representatives for their help as no doubt are the Applicant and her family.
I consider that my judgment on the substance of this application warrants a reconsideration of the decision of the Legal Aid Agency. Also, that judgment should be taken into account in future cases relating to the public funding of a family member of the subject of proceedings in the Court of Protection (P).
The order sought is that the Respondents do pay:
i) the costs of the Applicant's solicitor and Vikram Sachdeva QC up to 5pm on 8 December 2015 on the indemnity basis at inter partes, to be assessed if not agreed; and
ii) an amount as summarily assessed on the indemnity basis to the Access to Justice Foundation, representing the pro bono costs of Richard Spearman QC and Victoria Butler-Cole of counsel up to 5pm on 8 December 2015, and the pro bono equivalent costs of Victoria Butler-Cole in respect of the costs submissions.
The first part of this relief relates to costs that were publicly funded. The second part is founded on s. 194 of the Legal Services Act 2007 and there is a dispute as to whether it applies to the Court of Protection (the COP) which is not mentioned expressly in the relevant statutory definition of a civil court. I do not need to address that dispute because on the assumption that the section applies to the COP I refuse to make the order sought.
The orders sought relate to a limited period of time in the history of this case. As appears from my judgment the application related to the extension or making of a reporting restrictions order after the death of the subject of the proceedings (C) on Saturday 28 November 2015 when the reporting restrictions order that had been made during the substantive proceedings came to an end.
MacDonald J's judgment in the substantive proceedings was handed down (without attendance) on 30 November 2015. A significant increase in the media interest in reporting the case resulted and this formed part of...
To continue reading
Request your trial