Council defeats costs application in High Court case on vulnerable adult and inherent jurisdiction

Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council has successfully resisted an attempt to get a costs order against it by the parents of a vulnerable adult.

Mr Justice Cobb said in the High Court Family Division that while the case was not one in which one party had been obviously successful, the council’s actions had been reasonable.

He had in September given judgment in Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council v PR & Ors [2019] EWHC 2305 (Fam) and both the father SR and the mother TR later applied to recover costs from the local authority. Redcar and Cleveland opposed this.

PR had made disclosures about aspects of life with her parents “which gave the professional safeguarding and care agencies considerable concern about her future well-being should she return there”.

She had at one point been admitted to hospital and made allegations against one of her parents and was extremely anxious about returning to live with them, to the point of threatening to take her own life.

When ready for discharge, the local authority applied to the High Court for orders under the inherent jurisdiction preventing PR from returning to live with her parents. Interim orders were granted, initially without notice, and were kept in place for around four weeks.

Ultimately, PR decided she did not want to return to live with her parents, and they in turn agreed to have limited contact with her and not to try to persuade her to return home, and the inherent jurisdiction orders were discharged.

SR and TR argued the proceedings were unnecessary and expensive and that it was not reasonable for the council to bring them without having first attempted to resolve matters with the family.

Ruling on the costs application in Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council v PR [2019] EWHC 2800 (Fam), Mr Justice Cobb said: “The outcome of this application did not produce one or more obviously 'successful' party, nor one or more obviously 'unsuccessful' party…thus, there is no easy application of the 'general rule’ “that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party”.

But the judge said that it had been reasonable for the council to conclude that if they notified SR and TR of the intention to apply for an order this could have exposed PR to undue or inappropriate pressure.

“I am satisfied that it was not unreasonable for the local authority to approach the court for protective orders, rather than attempting to obtain voluntary agreements to the safeguarding regime which they wished to create for PR,” he said.

“[SR and TR] have been put to expense in responding to this application, but I see no justification for foisting that bill upon the [council].”

The judge decided there would be no costs order made.

Mark Smulian

See also: The limits of the inherent jurisdiction (2) by the Court of Protection team at 39 Essex Chambers analyse Mr Justice Cobb's ruling.