Reference Case Law

IF YOU UNDERTAKE WORK AS A DEPUTY OR AS A CASE WORKER ON DEPUTYSHIP MATTERS PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING CASE LAW WHICH THE COSTS OFFICERS MAY INVOKE WHEN ASSESSING YOUR BILL.

  • 16/01/2020

    London Borough of Southwark v NP & Ors [2019] EWCOP 48

    This case, which considered the treatment and living arrangements of NP, a 17 year-old suffering from cerebral palsy and atypical anorexia, is of interest not only because of the restrictions that were granted to limit NP’s contact with her mother following her discharge from hospital (there was evidence that the […]

  • 03/01/2020

    Bagguley v E [2019] EWCOP 49

    This case concerned an application brought by a Deputy for property and affairs for authority to undertake DNA testing of an elderly man with dementia (P) to establish whether he was the father of 3 adults. Previous DNA tests had been inconclusive and the Deputy applied for the paternity testing […]

  • 03/01/2020

    P, Re [2019] EWCOP 42

    This case concerned an application for authority to execute a statutory will on behalf of P and for an order to dispense with authority to serve P’s son (X). The application was brought jointly by M & H, H being P‘s other child and M being P’s long-term partner. Evidence […]

  • 23/10/2007

    Louise Smith & Others – October 2007

    Guideline rates on Appeal: Master Haworth was asked to review his decision in Michael Ashton above and was able to rule that Court of Protection work should be allowed in accordance with the SCCO Guideline Hourly Rates. It is unlikely therefore that the court would ever award higher rates unless […]

  • 23/07/2006

    Michael Ashton – July 2006

    Guideline rates: In this case Master O’Hare stated that Court of Protection work was ‘less complex etc” than other areas of law such as litigation. He therefore ruled that hourly rates for Court of Protection work should be less than the Guideline Hourly Rates set by the SCCO for litigation […]

  • 23/12/2004

    Leighanne Radcliffe – December 2004

    Inter fee Earner Conferences/Routine Letters: On Appeal, Master O’Hare dealt with 2 aspects of a bill provisionally assessed by Costs Officer Sainthouse which had been challenged namely discussions between fee earners and also time claimed for letters which merely discharged invoices etc. He upheld the Costs Officer’s decision based on Garylee […]

  • 23/11/2002

    Jamie Walker – November 2002

    Discharging invoices etc: On appeal Master O’Hare considered the matter of routine letters which merely discharged invoices and which initially had been disallowed by the Costs Officer. Master O’Hare concluded that these should be allowed a 3 minute unit.

  • 23/11/1999

    Tina Jayne Cloughton – November 1999

    Delegation: Master O’Hare stated that a Deputy should wherever possible delegate appropriate tasks to more junior colleagues as delegation is entirely reasonable and would reduce costs. However, he also directed that the Deputy must be ensure that duplicate work is not carried out as result of the delegation.

  • 23/12/1998

    Garylee Grimsley – December 1998

    Attendances by Two or More Fee Earners: On Appeal, Master O’Hare disallowed in accordance with R –v- Legal Aid Board Ex Parte Bruce (1991) which stated: “Solicitors are not to be expected to carry knowledge of all the law in their heads… if the problem is outside the scope of their experience […]

Sign
Up

Receive our news and updates
Enter your email address below to subscribe

© 2020 Paramount Legal Costs Limited