England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Tracey, R (on the application of) v Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust & Ors [2013] EWHC 197 (Admin) (7 February 2013)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/197.html
Cite as: [2013] EWHC 197 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

		Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWHC 197 (Admin)
		Case No: CO/5198/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

7 February 2013

B e f o r e :

THE HON. MRS JUSTICE NICOLA DAVIES DBE
____________________

Between:

	The Queen on the application of David Tracey	Claimant
	- and -
	Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust	First Defendant
	Secretary of State for Health	Second Defendant
	Equality and Human Rights Commission	Third Defendant

____________________

Mr Philip Havers QC, Mr Jeremy Hyam and Ms Kate Beattie
(instructed by Leigh Day & Co) for the Claimant
Lord Faulks QC and Mr Simon Murray (instructed by Kennedys) for the First Defendant
Mr Vikram Sachdeva (instructed by DWP/DH Legal Services) for the Second Defendant
Mr David Wolfe QC (instructed by EHRC) for the Interested Party
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT COSTS
____________________

Mrs Justice Nicola Davies:

The Court has received written submissions from the claimant and both defendants as to the costs of the hearing. The hearing was ordered by Ouseley J in order to determine disputed issues of fact as between the family of Janet Tracey and the treating clinicians employed by the first defendant. The order was appropriate and necessary.

The findings of the Court favour the deceased as to the imposition of the first DNACPR notice and the clinicians as to the second. I do not accept the claimant's contention that had the first defendant admitted the findings identified in the nine questions set out in the claimant's solicitor's 'without prejudice' letter dated 8 October 2012 no hearing upon the disputed facts would have been necessary. The factual issues determined by the Court went further than those identified in the letter. I understand the first defendant's argument that the Court's findings as to events prior to the implementation of the first DNACPR had no causative effect, but a factual determination as to those events was necessary. The second defendant is content with an order as against the claimant of 'no order as to costs'. Given the factual findings made by the Court I am of the view that the appropriate order as between the claimant, the first and second defendant is that there be no order as to costs.

I am not minded to accede to the application of the first defendant as to the further steps to be taken in order to pursue a costs order against the Daily Mail. Events, in the form of a judgment to which both DNACPR notices were annexed overtook the original application by the Daily Mail. To take further procedural steps would not be a proportionate response by the Court.

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010