Rights breach council must pay out

7 February 2011 by

G v E & Ors [2010] EWHC 3385 (Fam) (21 December 2010) – Read judgment

Manchester City Council has been ordered to pay the full legal costs of a 20-year-old man with severe learning disabilities who was unlawfully removed from his long-term foster carer. The council demonstrated a “blatant disregard” for mental health law.

The case has wound an interesting route through the courts, with hearings in the Court of Protection, Court of Appeal, and also a successful application by the Press Association to reveal the identity of the offending local council in the interests of transparency. In August, Siobhain Butterworth wrote that the decision to name and shame the council was a “good” one which “marries the need for transparency in the treatment of vulnerable people with the right to a private life“.

Now, Mr Justice Baker has taken the unusual step of ordering that Manchester City Council pay all of E’s family’s legal costs. The general rule in the Court of Protection is that costs should not be awarded, but as the judge ruled it can be broken in certain circumstances:

The work carried out by the local authorities and other public bodies such as NHS Trusts in this important field cannot be underestimated… That does not mean, however, that local authorities, or any other public bodies, can be excluded from liability to pay costs in appropriate cases. (para 38)

Simply, the local authority’s behaviour was so bad in this case that it justified breaking from the rule:

I am entirely satisfied that the local authority’s blatant disregard of the processes of the MCA and their obligation to respect E’s rights under the ECHR amount to misconduct which justifies departing from the general rule. (41)

Moreover, it was no excuse that the local authority staff were ignorant of the rules under the Mental Capacity Act. Mr Justice Baker made clear that ignorance is no excuse in this or future cases:

Given the enormous responsibilities put upon local authorities under the MCA, it was surely incumbent on the management team to ensure that their staff were fully trained and properly informed about the new provisions… As it is, the local authority’s actions in this case would have infringed E’s Article 5 and 8 rights under the old law as well as under the MCA. (41)

Nor was the judge interested in hearing how strained public finances are:

I deprecate the practice of relying on arguments that the impact of a costs order would reduce the local authority’s social care budget. The Legal Services Commission could equally well argue that the denial of a costs order in this case in favour of G, F and E will reduce the funds available for other cases. If a costs order is made, that will be the fault of Manchester City Council, not the Court. (39)

E’s family have already spent a lot of time in court, and the costs bill will be substantial. The complicated background to the case is set out in paragraph 6 to 21 of the judgment. In short, E suffered from severe learning difficulties. He had been living with F, his former foster carer, for around 10 years when he was removed from her care by the Local Authority.

Mr Justice Baker ruled in March that the council had deprived E of his liberty and infringed his rights under article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and had also breached his article 8 rights to family life by removing him from his long-term foster carer without enough consideration or consultation. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision (read our post).

The family may not have had their last day in court, however. Permission is being sought to appeal to the Supreme Court for the original judgment against the council. If the appeal is successful, Mr Justice Baker has agreed to reconsider his decision on costs. And the question of damages for breach of E’s rights is to be decided later this year.

For now, this decision will serve as a warning to local authorities that they will not always be protected from paying out legal costs in the Court of Protection. In the most serious cases, where rules have been ignored and the rights of highly vulnerable people breached, authorities may have to pay out legal costs however empty the public purse.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more

5 comments


  1. keith hudson says:

    Surely it’s less about ignorance of the law and more about “we can do what we like because others are ignorant of the law”. I’ve worked on no fewer than three cases where the MCA has been used to threaten and bully families into submission.

  2. ObiterJ says:

    I understand that lack of “resources” is tending to be increasingly argued by local authorities as a reason for being either dilatory in performing or not performing their statutory duties.

    As financial cuts bite ever deeper, matters will inevitably worsen. No doubt the events dealt with in the G and E case occurred over recent years when money was more plentiful. However, Manchester Council is facing cuts of some £102m in government assistance over the next 2 years. Some 2000 jobs are being cut.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-12177853

    The problems developing are going to be extremely serious and will ultimately cost billions to address. Similar cutbacks are of course taking place almost everywhere.

  3. s.Legree says:

    Let us all hope this case sets a precedent for local authorities Social Services who have started to refuse to continue to maintain & repair chair lifts etc., that are installed in severely disabled persons homes, as the authority is bound to continue to repair as necessary, by law.
    `Withdrawing funding` cannot be used as an excuse to discontinue legal obligations.

  4. Stephen says:

    This is further evidence that the children-in-care system should not be operated by Local Authorities. Instead, a national service is required, with a similar structure to the Police Force. There are too many competing demands on LA funds and kids in care are not given the priority they deserve.

    Moreover, social work training and recruitment does not pass muster. Many university social work departments amount to centres of propaganda that promote minority or feminist agendas – a very high risk diversion given that childrens’ lives are at stake. At least some of the tragic cases of murdered/abused children stem from social worker political correctness where a feminist agenda was pursued so that the mother’s interests were promoted over the child’s. This is despite the legislation which requires the child’s interest to be paramount.

  5. cb says:

    It’s amazing to me (and I say this as an ‘insider’) how much ignorance there is about the Mental Capacity Act in local authorities. I hope cases like this scare all of them into devoting more time into training people up.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: