Introduction
Lucy Taylor, barrister at Coram Chambers, has published a detailed case summary on a recent Court of Protection decision. The article explores the principles for awarding costs in cases concerning deputyship applications. This summary is valuable for private client practitioners and professionals working in the Court of Protection.
Practical implications of the case
The decision in Riddle v NA offers clear guidance for future costs applications. The court has clarified how the Court of Protection Rules 2017 should be applied. For those advising clients on deputyship and costs, the judgment provides useful reference points. It highlights that, even where applications are made in good faith, costs are not automatically recoverable.
Background to the case
Mr Riddle applied to be appointed as Deputy for NA’s property and financial affairs. His application was unsuccessful. He then sought to recover his costs. District Judge MacCuish refused this application. Mr Riddle appealed the costs refusal.
The court’s decision
Mr Justice Harris heard the appeal. He allowed the appeal and reconsidered the question of costs from scratch. After reviewing the facts, the judge confirmed that Mr Riddle should not recover his costs from NA. The judgment reaffirms the need for clear justification when seeking costs from a protected party.
The applicable law
The court closely analysed Rules 19.2 and 19.5 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017. These rules set out the default positions and exceptions for costs orders. The decision makes plain that costs orders in the Court of Protection are not automatic.
The decision de novo
Mr Justice Harris reached his own view on the costs, independent of the earlier decision. He decided the circumstances did not justify an order for costs in Mr Riddle’s favour. This approach emphasises the court’s discretion in costs matters.
Case details
- Case: Riddle v NA
- Court: Court of Protection
- Judges: District Judge MacCuish (first instance), Mr Justice Harris (appeal)
- Subject: Costs following unsuccessful deputyship application
Article summary
Lucy Taylor’s article provides an essential update for those practising in this area. The case demonstrates the importance of preparing strong evidence when applying for costs. It also clarifies the law for future cases.
For those with access, Lucy’s full article is available on LexisNexis here.
