This was the conclusionof the court in a case called Re S (A Child) [2015] UKSC 20which was an Appeal by the localauthority to the Supreme Court against an order that the local authority shouldpay the appeal costs of a successful appellant in care proceedings. The Appealwas allowed and the costs order was set aside.
The father of a youngdaughter successfully appealed against a placement order obtained by the localauthority in relation to the daughter’s adoption. The Court of Appeal held thatthe first instance Court was wrong in making the placement order without firstassessing the situation of the father. TheJudge also failed to articulate her reasons for the placement order.
The local authority wasthen ordered to pay the father’s costs of the appeal summarily assessed in thesum of £13,787.70. The reason why the Court of Appeal ordered that the local authority should pay those costs wasbecause it had resisted the appeal and also in order not to deter a parent from challenging decisionswhich impact on the most crucial of human relationships.
The local authority appealed to the Supreme Court in relation to the costsorder only.
The issue arising on this appeal is whether it was right to order costsagainst the authority, given the principle confirmed by the Supreme Court in re T (Care Proceedings: costs) [2012] UKSC 36 that in general, localauthorities should not be ordered to pay costs in care proceedings.
The issues were: (i) whether there were any other circumstances, beyond thetwo identified in Re T, namelyreprehensible behavior or an unreasonable stance, in which a costs order mightbe justified; and (ii) whether there was any reason to depart from the generalapproach in Re T in the present case.
The Supreme Court unanimouslyallowed the appeal by the local authority and set aside the costs order made inthe Court of Appeal. It was held thatthe overall responsibility is to ensure the best outcome for the child. TheSupreme Court also made reference that if the best outcome for the child was tobe brought up by her own biological family, there could be a potential case ofhardship if the family had to bear their own costs of achieving the outcomewhich could have an impact on the child’s welfare.
In the case of Re T, the onlytime costs may be awarded against local authorities is if there has been reprehensiblebehavior or an unreasonable stance in which a costs order might bejustified.
It is advisedthat both of these circumstances are closely considered all the way throughoutthe care proceedings to prevent local authorities being ordered to pay costs.Furthermore, each case must beconsidered on its own merits as to the correct order for costs to ensure thewelfare of the child.
Written byJessica Swannell, Costs Lawyer & Practice Manager of A&M Bacon Limited,Legal Costs Specialists.
0+
