Can a family member or care worker be appointed as a Representative or Litigation Friend if they are partly responsible for constituting a Deprivation of Liberty?

daniellelwalker1Leave a comment

SCC v MSA & Another (2017) EWCOP 18

This case looked at the issues of where a Protected Party’s mother should act as his Rule 3A representative, in light of the fact that she was the person responsible for implementing a restrictive care regime that constituted a deprivation of liberty.

Background

The SCCG commissioned a care package to MSA who was a young adult with severe learning disabilities and was deprived of his liberty at his family home. The Court had previously authorised that it was in MSA’s best interests to reside at home and receive the  care package. MSA was recorded as;

“unable to communicate or mobilise independently, is frequently strapped into his wheelchair, is kept for some of the time in a padded room at his home with a closed door that he cannot open, is highly resistive to personal care interventions so that physical restraint is required, and does not have external carers in the home.”

The issue that arose during the proceedings, was whether MSA’s mother, JA could or should act as his 3A Representative. The Official Solicitor (OS) submitted at a hearing on 23 March 2017, that it would be inappropriate for MSA’s representative in these proceedings and any future proceedings to be the person responsible for implementing a restrictive care regime that constituted a deprivation of liberty, where the arrangements surpassed 24 hour supervision.

Written submissions were filed by both parties and the Court agreed to consider the appropriateness of JA acting as his litigation friend. It is worth noting here, that JA did not wish to be appointed, the OS had raised the issue and guidance on the matter was sought.

Court of Protection Rules 2007

Rule 3A, requires the Court to consider in each case how best to ensure the Protected Party’s participation in proceedings was assured.

Rule 3A(2)(c) ” P’s participation should be secured by the appointment of a representative whose function shall provide the Court with information as to the matters set out in s4(6) of the Act and discharge functions as the Court may direct.

Rule 147 states “A person may act as an accredited legal representative or representative for P, if that person can fairly and competently discharge his or her functions on behalf of P.”

Rule 148B provides the Court with the power to prevent a person from acting  or terminate an appointment of a person as a litigation friend

Rule 140(1) states that a person may act as a litigation friend for P if that person,

  1. A) fairly and competently conduct proceedings on behalf of that person, and
  2. B) has no interests adverse to those of that person

The OS stated that it would not be appropriate to appoint a family member who who supported the deprivation of the Protected Party’s liberty as being in his best interests, as it would be difficult for them to challenge the deprivation due to a conflict of interest. Especially in this case, as the Protected Party was locked in a padded room at times and had to be physically restrained in a wheelchair.

The CCG argued that JA could undertake the role as she was engaged with statutory services and care providers and had a history of acting as the Protected Party’s advocate. They also stated, that there was no rule which prohibited a family member from acting.

District Judge Bellamy stated the following would need to be considered;

  1. a) Whether or not a family member or friend who is responsible in part for implementing a restrictive care arrangement is appropriate to be representative or litigation friend is fact and case specific
  2. b)The Court will have close regard to the relationship between the family member and the Protected Party
  3. c)The conduct, if any of the family member and any available evidence that he or she has acted otherwise in accordance with Rule 140(1) or Rule 147
  4. d)The Court must consider the nature of the restrictive care package and the role that the family member would play in the regime

An agreement with the OS in terms of where a family member is responsible for providing care that includes restrictive physical interventions, the Court should take great care in exercising its discretion as regard to the Protected Party’s representation in proceedings pursuant to Rule 3A. However, it would go no further than that and if a family member who was so involved put themselves forward to act as a representative or litigation friend, providing that all circumstances were scrutinised, there could be no blanket objection in principle, to undertake the role.

The Court must be satisfied that the representative can,

1.i) Elicit P’s wishes and feelings in accordance with s4(6) of the MCA known to the Court without causing any unnecessary distress to the Protected Party

2. ii) Critically examine from the Protected Party’s perspective their best interests, the pros and cons of the care package and whether it was the least restrictive option

3.iii) Review the implementation of the care package

Therefore, it was determined that providing the Protected Party’s Rights under Article 5 were adequately protected and the Court were satisfied, the role could be undertaken by a family member. In my opinion, this appears reasonable, as the family member may actually be the best person to represent the Protected Party as they have a personal connection and will more often than not understand from the Protected Party’s point of view as to what would be in their best interests.

In this case, as JA did not want to act as litigation friend, the OS would continue with the appointment.

If you require any further information, please contact; Danielle.walker@clarionsolicitors.com

 

Advertisements

The Liberty Protection Safeguards and the repeal of DoLS

ethanclarioncostsLeave a comment

The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), the framework which provides authorisation of restrictions of an individual’s freedom, look set to be repealed and replaced by a new scheme called the ‘Liberty Protection Safeguards’.

A House of Commons Library briefing paper has raised the actions recommended by the Law Commission’s report, published in March 2017, advocating the urgent repeal of the controversial rules that were introduced into the Mental Capacity Act in 2009.

DoLS provide a six-tiered statutory framework for the approval of a deprivation in situations where a person lacks mental capacity to consent to their care arrangements, and it is deemed that it is in the best interests of the patient to restrict their freedom.

A Supreme Court judgement in the case of P V Cheshire West & Cheshire Council [2014] changed the definition of a deprivation of liberty, thus increasing the volume of individuals determined to have their liberty deprived. As a consequence of this judgement, the number of DoLS applications has increased ten-fold, the implications and repercussions of which have been significant for social care practitioners and local authorities.

The new Liberty Protection Safeguards intend to ‘streamline the process for assessing whether a deprivation of liberty is necessary’ as well as increasing the efficiency of the authorisation process. The new safeguards would also apply to a broader group of people than those currently covered by DoLS, which only apply to deprivations in care homes and hospitals. Furthermore, 16 and 17-year-olds will now be protected under the new legislation.

Best Interests Assessors are expected to be replaced by an ‘Approved Mental Capacity Professional’ (AMCP) and the requirement for a best interests assessment in every case will be removed, with the focus of the thorough assessments shifted to only the more ‘serious’ cases whereby the care arrangements are contrary to the wishes of the patient.

When a possible deprivation is identified, the responsible body (usually the local authority) will be required to arrange a medical and capacity assessment, before considering whether the proposed care placement is necessary and proportionate. The case will be then considered by an ‘independent reviewer’, who is not involved in the patient’s care. If the conditions are considered to be met, the deprivation will be approved; if there are concerns regarding the placement however, the case will be referred to an AMCP.

The Law Commission report states that the new scheme will offer ‘further protection to people who object to their proposed placement’, while increasing the efficiency of the process and striking a ‘proportionate balance between responding efficiently to the volume of cases requiring authorisation since Cheshire West and giving proper safeguards to people whose objections are too easily over-ruled under the current law.’

The Government is due to publish its response to the recommendations.

If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact Ethan Bradley (ethan.bradley@clarionsolicitors.com) or the team at COPCosts@clarionsolicitors.com.

 

Deprivation of Liberty Proceedings on behalf of a minor [2017] EWHC 2458 (Fam)

georgiaclarkecopcostsLeave a comment

The Local Authority made an Application for permission to deprive the Protected Party (a minor) where there was no secure accommodation available.

The Protected Party was a 13 year old child and had a background of very serious uncontrollable behaviour which had resulted in damage to himself and others. As a result, he had been placed in over six different accommodations for his own and others’ safety. There were a number of occasions where the staff were unable to manage his behaviour or keep themselves and the Protected Party safe.

The Local Authority had repeatedly expressed their wishes to place the Protected Party in an approved secure placement, however these were rare and they were unable to find a suitable home. As a result, they had hoped it would have been possible to place him in a unit which was not deemed an approved secure accommodation. A plan was put in place that meant the Protected Party would stay at the accommodation and if necessary, be subject to considerable restraint, including physical restraint, solely for the purpose of keeping him safe.

Section 25 of the Children Act 1989 makes express and detailed provision for the making of what are known as Secure Accommodation Orders. Such Orders may be made and, indeed, frequently are made by Courts. It is not necessary to apply to the High Court for a Secure Accommodation Order, however, as there was no approved secure accommodation available, the Local Authority required the authorisation from a Court for the Deprivation of Liberty that the Protected Party would be subjected to.

Mr Justice Holman delivered his concern over the way in which applications of this kind were handled, saying that “the device of resort to the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is operating to by-pass the important safeguard under the regulations of approval by the Secretary of State of establishments used as secure accommodation. There is a grave risk that the safeguard of approval by the Secretary of State is being denied to some of the most damaged and vulnerable children. This is a situation which cannot go on, and I intend to draw it to the attention of the President of the Family Division.”

The Judge ordered that the child now be joined as a party to these proceedings and a guardian must be appointed to act on his behalf. A further hearing was fixed for a months time, as the Judge was concerned the Protected Party had been deprived of his liberty for the past 3 months. The Judge advised further “in view of the gravity of the subject matter and the age of the child, I propose to order that he must be enabled to attend the hearing if he expresses a wish to do so unless the guardian states that in his opinion it would be damaging to the health, wellbeing or emotional stability of the child to do so. In my view it is very important that ordinarily in these situations, which in plain language involve a child being ‘locked up’, the child concerned should, if he wishes, have an opportunity to attend a court hearing. The exception to that is clearly if the child is so troubled that it would be damaging to his health, wellbeing or emotional stability to do so. But subject to that exception, if a child of sufficient age, which includes a child of this or any older age, wishes to attend a hearing of this kind, then in my view he must be enabled to do so.”

If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact Georgia Clarke or the team at COPCosts@clarionsolicitors.com

Forgot to secure a payment on account of costs at the final hearing? All may not be lost…

jochaseLeave a comment

This brief judgment concerned whether or not a party could seek an order for a payment on account of costs after a costs award had been ordered, but before detailed assessment proceedings had begun.

In Ashman v Thomas [2016] EWHC 1810 (Ch), judgment had been given extempore on preliminary issues on 21 June 2016. Following the hearing, and as part of seeking to agree terms of the order, the defendant sought a payment on account of costs. On 23 June 2016, 2 days after the hearing, the defendant served a costs schedule totalling circa. £48,650. The claimant disputed the defendant’s entitlement to a payment on account on the basis they had failed to make the request at the time the order was made. The claimant relied on there being no provision within the rules for the defendant to now seek a payment on account of costs until they had commenced detailed assessment proceedings and sought an interim costs certificate under CPR 44.16(1).

In addition, the claimant alleged that the defendant was in breach of CPR 44PD 9.5 (4)(b), as they had failed to serve a costs schedule 24 hours before the hearing. Master Matthews dismissed this point on the basis that PD 9.5 (4)(b) concerned summary assessment of costs and was not applicable to detailed assessment.

The main issue between the parties was whether an order could be made to include a term for a payment on account of costs when that request had not been made at the actual hearing.

Master Matthews considered CPR 44.2(8):

“Where the court orders a party to pay costs subject to detailed assessment, it will order that party to pay a reasonable sum on account of costs, unless there is good reason not to do so”,

and decided that there was good reason to consider the defendant’s request on the basis that it had been made after the hearing but before the order was sealed. The court retains power to alter its judgment or order until it is perfected and sealed in accordance with Re Barrell Enterprises [1973] 1 WLR 19, CA.

The defendant sought a payment on account of costs in the sum of £20,000. The claimant challenged the statement of costs on several grounds, including excessive hourly rates, signature of the statement by the firm and not individual solicitor, and failure to identify which costs the statement related to.

Master Matthews accepted that the statement was restricted to preliminary issues only, and he was also not concerned with the signature challenge on the basis that the matter was not subject to a summary assessment.

He was, however, in agreement with the claimant that the hourly rates were excessive. Furthermore, he believed that some of the work undertaken by the Grade A Solicitor could have been delegated to a more junior fee earner. He stressed that “the paying party should not be asked to pay more than is reasonable and proportionate”.

Taking the above into consideration, Master Matthews agreed that a payment on account of costs was justified, however, given the excessive level of costs claimed, the award was limited to £17,500, to be paid within 14 days.

This short judgment contains several reminders about good practice. The filing of a statement of costs before any hearing ensures that the issue of a payment on account of costs can be dealt with as soon as a costs award has been made, as per CPR 44.2(8).

However, if the receiving party did not secure an order for a payment on account of costs at the time the costs award was made, they still have an opportunity to seek inclusion within the order prior to it being sealed by the Court. A statement of costs is likely to prove essential in quantifying the amount of the payment on account to be made.

If you have any questions or queries in relation this blog or legal costs in general please contact Joanne Chase (joanne.chase@clarionsolicitors.com and 0113 336 3327) or the Clarion Costs Team on 0113 246 0622.

The OPG105 Form – An Update for Professional Deputies

stephanierkayeLeave a comment

All professional Deputies should be aware of the OPG105 form (introduced in March 2016) which is required for submission alongside the OPG102 Deputyship Report on an annual basis to the Office of the Public Guardian in general management cases.

When submitting General Management Bills for Assessment to the Senior Courts Costs Office in relation to Deputyship matters, they are now requesting the above information. You may or may not have received notice from the Court stating the following:

“For the attention of Financial Deputies: Following the introduction of the OPG105 form in March 2016, please ensure when submitting general management bills for assessment, copies of the Annual Report/Accounts and Form OPG105 are attached to your bill to be assessed. Thank you for your co-operation in this matter.”

Following the Professional Deputy Costs Good Practice Guidance issued by the OPG and the SCCO in July 2016, it was requested that these documents were filed alongside the Bill of Costs for assessment by the Deputy. It’s apparent that very few Deputies are following this procedure and as such, the Court appear to be reinforcing the message. The guidance states:

“When submitting their bill for assessment, professional Deputies should enclose a copy of the fees estimate previously submitted to OPG. Estimates are not binding on the detailed assessment. If the costs claimed in the bill are 20% or more above the estimate it will also be necessary to provide reasons to the SCCO as to why there is a difference.

Should there be changes in the client’s circumstances during the year (and therefore costs to their estate), the Deputy should alert OPG if the fees are likely to be 20% or more than the submitted estimate. However, it will be for the SCCO to assess the professional Deputy’s costs at the end of the reporting year and for the Deputy to explain any inconsistencies.”

The guidance can be found here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/538901/19_07_16_Professional_deputy_costs__FINAL.pdf

If you have any queries in respect of the above information, please do not hesitate to contact Stephanie Kaye, Head of the Court of Protection Costs Team at Clarion Solicitors, at Stephanie.kaye@clarionsolicitors.com or alternatively, please call 0113 336 3402.

 

CH (By his Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor) and a Metropolitan Council (2017)

daniellelwalker1Leave a comment

An application was made on behalf of the claimant for approval of a proposed settlement of his claim against the Local Authority. The claim originated following proceedings that were issued in the Court of Protection and a claim for damages pursuant to the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998). A Part 8 claim was brought under the Civil Procedure Rules, pursuant to the decision in Luton v SW (2017).

CPR 21.10, stipulates where a party is a Protected Party, the Court must approve any proposed settlement. CH was identified as a Protected Party and a declaration had been made that he lacked the capacity to litigate. The Court of Protection itself, does not make specific provisions for approving a settlement, however the Court has the power to do so, as  explained by Charles J in YA (F) v A Local Authority (2010).

Facts of the Case
The Protected Party was was 38 years of age and was born with Downs Syndrome and had associated learning difficulties. He married WH in 2010 and they lived together in his parents home. They enjoyed normal conjugal relations until 27 May 2015.

The Protected Party and his wife, WH sought fertility treatment as they wanted to start a family. The Local Authority had a duty towards the Protected Party, and in late 2014 he was assessed by a Consultant Psychologist who determined that he lacked the capacity to consent to sexual relationships. The Protected Party and WH were informed by a letter, dated 27 March 2015. The letter stated that WH was to abstain from sexual relations with the Protected Party due to his apparent lack of capacity to consent and if not adhered to, relations would amount to a serious criminal offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. WH was also informed that if she failed to comply, safeguarding measures would be implemented and one of the parties would be removed from the home.

The parties complied and WH moved into a separate bedroom and any physical contact with the Protected Party ceased, which obviously had a detrimental affect upon the Protected Party himself, as he could not fully comprehend the reason for his wife’s actions.

The Consultant Psychologist stated that the Protected Party required a sex education course to help him achieve the necessary capacity. This advice was in line with Section 3 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which provides “a person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision unless all practicable steps to help him to do so have been taken without success.” The Local Authority failed to implement that advice, despite numerous requests to do so and having received protracted correspondence.

The Protected Party’s sister, SH acting as his Litigation Friend initiated proceedings in the Court of Protection in February 2016. It required an Order of the Court to implement the original psychological advice, following which the relevant course began on 27 June 2016. It was reported that the Protected Party had made sufficient progress in all areas, however further sex education was required, which was undertaken in Early 2017. On 19 March 2017, the Psychologist stated in writing that the Protected Party now had the required capacity to consent to sexual relations. The Local Authority thereafter accepted this decision.

A letter before action was sent to the Local Authority on behalf of the Protected Party, in compliance with the guidance set out in the case of H v Northamptonshire CC (2017). The Local Authority are a public body and are subject to sections 6 and 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Section 6(1) provides that “it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a convention right.” Article 8 also states that ” everyone has the right to respect private and family life, his home and his correspondence.”

Breaches
The issues identified were the delay in implementing the advised programmes of education. This stemmed from 27 March 2015 when conjugal relations were required to cease, to the start of the first sexual education programme on 27 June 2016. The Local Authority did not contest the same.

Remedy
The remedy lies in damages governed by Section 8 of the HRA 1998. Section 8(3) states where an “award is necessary to afford justification to the person in whose favour it is made.” Where an award is made, the Court must under section 8(4), “take into account the principles applied by the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the award of compensation under Article 41 of the Convention.

The Defendant offered;
(1) to make a formal apology for the delays
(2) to pay the Protected Party damages in the sum of £10,000 as a result of the delay
(3) to pay the Protected Party’s pre-action costs in the sum of £7,395 (inclusive of VAT)
(4) to pay the Protected Party’s costs of the Part 8 application and seeking approvals of the Court for the settlement.

Considerations
WH had also pursued her own claim under the HRA 1998 and the claim had settled for an undisclosed amount. The Local Authority had also agreed to pay the Protected Party’s costs of the Court of Protection Proceedings which totalled £21,600 (inclusive of VAT). It was imperative  that this information was noted so as to ensure that there was no recouping of costs against damages under Section 25 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, (LASPO).

Quantum
The Judge considered the appropriate quantum of damages for the Protected Party’s deprivation of his normal conjugal relations with his wife for a period of at least 12 months.  It transpired that there were no exact comparators in any reported case in England and Wales either in Tort law or under the Convention relevant to compulsory cessation of conjugal relationships.

Judge Hedley concluded that the proposed settlement was in the best interests of the Protected Party and reflected a fair outcome to the proceedings. As no Deputy was appointed for property and affairs, it was agreed that the monies would be paid into a Court Funds Office Account. The Judge also allowed for an additional £2,000 to be paid immediately to allow for the installation of an en-suite bathroom to the Protected Party’s matrimonial bedroom.

The intrusion was essentially lawful and had been properly motivated as a safeguarding measure, however the delays had led to proceedings being issued and unnecessary costs of litigation.It does however, highlight that vulnerable people with disabilities are entitled to be protected under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, in the same way as any other member of society.

This blog was prepared by Danielle Walker who is a Costs Lawyer and Associate at Clarion Solicitors. Danielle specialises in Court of Protection Costs. Danielle can be contacted on 0113 222 3213 or at danielle.walker@clarionsolicitors.com.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Non-Party Costs Orders

andrewmcaulayLeave a comment

The case of Housemaker Services & Anor -v- Cole and Anor [2017] is a useful case for any litigant or law firm considering whether to make an application for a non-party costs order.

Facts

  1. The claim was brought under CPR Part 8 for a limitation direction under Section 1028 of the Companies Act 2006. The underlying claim related to three disputed invoices rendered by the First Claimant to the Defendants. The First Claimant had subsequently been struck off the register and dissolved.
  2. The Court dismissed the claim because the First Claimant could not demonstrate that the dissolution of the company had caused the claim not to be brought, and therefore the Court declined to give a limitation direction.
  3. The Court ordered the First Claimant to pay the Defendants’ costs on the standard basis. The Defendants applied for Mr Wayne Williams, the sole director of the Claimant, to be joined as Second Claimant to the proceedings, for the purposes of making an application for a non-party costs order against him.
  4. The Court made the order joining Mr Williams (Second Claimant) and then gave further directions for the application against him to be dealt with on paper. The Judgment essentially deals with those submissions and the Courts determination of the application for a non-party costs order against Mr Williams.

Submissions of Interest/Note

  1. Mr Williams gave instructions to pursue the proceedings and appeared to have funded them. The First Claimant had no assets and it was highly unlikely that they would be able to satisfy an order for costs.
  2. In respect of a non-party costs order, a warning at the earliest opportunity should be given. The first warning of the application was made at a very late stage.
  3. There was no suggestion that proceedings were brought in bad faith, for an ulterior motive or improperly. 

    Useful Information/Comments from the Judgment

     

  • Paragraph 10 – “A decision to make a non-party costs order is exceptional, but this only means that it is outside of the ordinary run of cases. In a case where a non-party funds and controls or benefits from proceedings, it is ordinarily just to make him pay the costs, if his side is unsuccessful, because the non-party was gaining access to justice for himself, and thus can be regarded as the real party to the litigation”. (this was a general comment about non-party costs orders).

 

  • Paragraph 11 – “However, the director of a limited company is in a special position. It is not an abuse of the process for a limited company with no assets to bring a claim in good faith. It is always open to a defendant to such a claim to apply for security for costs. The mere fact that a director who controls the company’s litigation also funds the claim is not enough in the ordinary case to justify a non-party costs order against him if the company’s case fails”. 

     

  • Paragraph 12 – “A company is indeed owned by its members. But this does not mean that the shareholder is the “real” party to the claim. In law, the assets of the company (including any claim) belong to the company, and not to the members. Where the proceedings are brought in good faith and for the benefit of the company (rather than for some collateral purpose), the company is indeed the real claimant. If it were otherwise, the principle of the separate liability of the company from its members would be eroded”. 

     

  • Paragraph 13 – “Moreover, it is not an unusual thing, let alone wrong, that a director who is a shareholder of a company and who funds the company’s claim will ultimately benefit from it if it is successful. It is simply a consequence of the policies adopted by our company law, allowing businessmen to take some risks in seeking profit without incurring unlimited liability”. 

     

  • Paragraph 14 – “A person choosing to deal voluntarily with (or to sue) a limited liability company does so against the legal background. Any potential unfairness caused to a party who is (involuntarily) sued by such a company is remedied by the security for costs jurisdiction”. 

     

  • Paragraph 15 – “Accordingly, in order to make it just to order a director to pay the costs of unsuccessful company litigation, it is necessary to show something more. This might be, for example, that the claim is not made in good faith, or for the benefit of the company or it might be that the claim has been improperly conducted by the director”. 


    Conclusion     

    The Court decided that this was not a case where non-party costs order should be made. The Court did not find that the behaviour of Mr Williams in controlling, funding and ultimately hoping to benefit from the claim went beyond the ordinary case of the director and shareholder of a company pursuing a legal claim (paragraph 22). 

    This blog was prepared by Andrew McAulay who is a Partner at Clarion and the Head of the Costs and Litigation Funding team. He can be contacted on 0113 336 3334 or at andrew.mcaulay@clarionsolicitors.com.