England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal

Scott v Commission for Social Care Inspection (Brookwood Residential Home) [2004] EWCST 418(EA-JP) (22 September 2005)

Beverley Scott -v- Commission for Social Care Inspection (Brookwood Residential Home) [2004] 418.EA-JP
DECISION ON COSTS
1. The Appellant appealed the decision of the Doncaster Magistrates Court dated 8^th November 2004. By letter dated 12^th August 2005, Solicitors for the Registration Authority wrote to the Secretary to the Tribunal withdrawing their client's opposition to the appeal.
2. In accordance with Regulation 33(2), the case was determined in the Appellant's favour by Decision dated 22^nd August 2005.
3. By letter dated 26^th August 2005, the Representative of the Appellant sought an Order for Costs in the sum of £41,747.00p.
4. By letter dated 13^th September 2005, Solicitors for the Registration Authority submitted a response resisting the application for costs.
5. Both parties have informed the Secretariat that they are content for the matter to be dealt with on the basis of the papers that have been submitted, and without the need for any further oral submissions.
6. In accordance with Regulation 33(3), the matter can be dealt with by the President or nominated chairman alone.
7. Costs may be awarded if in the opinion of the President a party has acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting the proceedings. It is apparent from the wording of Regulation 24 that there is no power to make an award of costs in a case where the President forms the view that a party has not acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting the proceedings.
8. This case arose out of proceedings brought by the Registration Authority before the Magistrates Court under emergency procedures. There had been an anonymous report to the effect that a service user had died in suspicious circumstances. The allegation in relation to the Appellant was that she had covered up the circumstances surrounding the service user's death.
9. The Registration Authority took the view that the allegations were of a serious nature potentially affecting the health or well being of the service users. It made a successful application ex parte to the Magistrates Court that the Appellant's registration as manager and provider of Brookwood Care Home be cancelled forthwith.
10. In the application for costs, the Appellant's representative acknowledges that the Registration Authority has a duty to investigate all allegations whether anonymous or not. Although he accompanies this acknowledgment with a criticism of the investigation, it is my finding, on the facts of this case, that the step taken by the Registration Authority to seek an emergency cancellation from the Magistrates cannot constitute an unreasonable act in the "conduct" of the proceedings.
11. I make no observation on whether seeking an emergency order from the Magistrates can never form a basis for a costs claim by a successful Appellant.
12. The primary issue in this case is whether any conduct by the Registration Authority in its dealings with the Tribunal and/or the Appellant during the course of the proceedings in the Care Standards Tribunal can amount to unreasonable conduct.
13. There was a preliminary hearing by telephone of this appeal on 5^th April 2005 when the proceedings in regard to this matter were stayed. Both parties agreed to inform the Secretary to the Tribunal no later than 15^th August 2005 of the outcome of the criminal proceedings that had been brought against the Appellant that were scheduled to commence on 11^th July 2005 at Sheffield Crown Court. The Appellant was acquitted of all criminal charges on 27^th July 2005, and the Registration Authority notified the Tribunal on 12^th August 2005 that it no longer resisted the appeal.
14. It is my finding that the Registration Authority did not act unreasonably in the conduct of the proceedings before the Tribunal. All matters were dealt with expeditiously, and the Directions of 5^th April 2005 were fully complied with by the Registration Authority within the timescale agreed to by both parties.
15. In these circumstances, having concluded that the Registration Authority did not behave unreasonably in the conduct of these proceeding, the application for costs is dismissed.

The appropriate ORDER to make in this case is NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.

His Honour Judge David Pearl

President

22^nd September 2005.