Local authority ordered to pay substantial costs in family human rights case – Adam Smith

19 April 2013 by

A & S v. Lancashire County Council [2013] EWHC 851 (Famread judgment

This was a costs application arising from an extremely important decision by Peter Jackson J in June 2012 (see Alasdair Henderson’s post here and read judgment)

In that original judgment, Lancashire County Council were found to be in breach of Articles 8 (private life), 6 (fair trial) and Article 3 (inhuman treatment) of ECHR. Two brothers had come into local authority care as infants and were freed for adoption.

The original judgment

The judge had summarised things as follows:

A has had no fewer than 12 main placements during his lifetime, of which 7 lasted for less than a year and 5 lasted for between a year and 5½ years. During this time, he has been placed in respite care 36 times, with 19 different respite carers. In one 18 month period beginning when he was 10, he went to 8 different respite carers. A has moved backwards and forwards between placements of all kinds no less than 77 times in his 16 years of life.

S has had no fewer than 16 main placements during his lifetime (12 with A and 4 without him). Of these, 10 lasted for less than a year and 6 lasted for between a year and 5½ years. During this time, he has been placed in respite care 40 times, with at least 22 different respite carers. Like A, in one 18 month period beginning when he was 9, he went to 8 different respite carers. Overall, S has moved backwards and forwards between placements of all kinds no less than 96 times in his 14 years of life.

The result was that the boys remained under freeing orders for 11 years, suffering multiple placement breakdowns. They became increasingly unsettled and disturbed; they suffered irreparable harm and real life long damage. The local authority failed to apply to discharge the freeing orders, despite abandoning plans to  adopt. This meant the children’s links to their family were severed – and the parents were unaware of the plight of their children.

Peter Jackson J demanded local authorities to overhaul their systems, so that children who remain under unsuccessful freeing or placement orders are identified, and those cases to court to apply to discharge the orders. Likewise, the Independent Reviewing Officer system across the county needed to work more effectively.

The costs judgment

 Unsurprisingly an applications for costs was made on behalf of the children.

In his short but significant judgement, in which it was agreed he would not hear any oral submissions, the judge found that:

  • Despite the “civil” nature of the Human Rights applications (with Particulars of Claim and Defences being filed), the costs issue should not be considered under the Civil Procedure Rules. The general rule that “costs follow the event” did not apply.
  • The HRA applications had been considered alongside applications for discharge of Freeing orders, and an application for Special Guardianship- costs were to be considered under the Family Proceedings Rules and family cases relating to costs.
  • He approved the principles in Re T (Children) (Care Proceedings) (Costs) [2012] UKSC 36: Orders for costs in family cases are unusual but can be made where the behaviour of a part has been reprehensible or outside the band of reasonableness”
  • In considering the “conduct” of the party it was not limited to “litigation conduct”- the behaviour of the local authority was to be looked at in the whole.“If this were the case a party who had behaved reprehensibly for years could escape a costs award by being sure to behave impeccably once the litigation for which they were responsible had begun.” (para 19)
  • The fact that the children were publicly funded made no difference; “the legal services commission is an equally hard-pressed public agency and the commission and the taxpayer – are entitled to look at the court to apply the costs rules impartially (applying G v E & Manchester CC [ 2011] 1 FLR 1566

The judge concluded the  decision was “quite simple” despite the considerable effort of the parties to argue it.

In this case [Lancashire County Council’s] conduct in relation to these  boys over many years was blatantly unlawful and unreasonable (as both it and the Independent Reviewing Officer have accepted) and led inexorably to substantial litigation.

The costs claimed were £210,734 –  the judge noted that “the impact on Lancashire’s budget is extremely regrettable”. It was not a case for costs to be awarded on an indemnity basis, and would  be subject to detailed assessment on the standard basis.

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

Read more:


  1. Andrew says:

    In a rational world, where costs followed the event as a matter of course in all litigation, this would not be news.

  2. What is the rationale for this rather than any other sum of money?

  3. Chris says:

    Its a pity that those directly responsible for this debacle can’t be made to make a contribution (however small) to costs

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.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas 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 care homes 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 diplomatic relations 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 hague convention Harry Dunn 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 ouster clauses 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 procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up 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 The Round Up 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 Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


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: