FAMILY DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council |
Applicant |
|
- and - |
||
PR |
Respondents |
|
SR (father of PR) |
||
TR (mother of PR) |
____________________
Nageena Khalique QC and Alexander Ruck Keene (instructed by BHP solicitors) for the First Respondent (PR, subject)
Ella Anderson (instructed by Punch Robson) for the Second Respondent (father of PR)
Jacqueline Thomas (instructed by Switalskis) for the Third Respondent (mother of PR)
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
This judgment was delivered in public. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of PR and members of her family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.
The Honourable Mr Justice Cobb :
Costs principles: application under the inherent jurisdiction in relation to a vulnerable adult.
"… "family business" means business of any description which in the High Court is for the time being assigned to the Family Division and to no other Division by or under section 61 of (and Schedule 1 to) the [Senior Courts Act 1981]; "family proceedings" means proceedings which are family business".
i) the conduct of all the parties;ii) whether a party has succeeded on part of its case, even if that party has not been wholly successful.
In relation to 'conduct':
iii) this includes "conduct before, as well as during, the proceedings";
iv) whether it was reasonable for a party to raise, pursue or contest a particular allegation or issue;
v) the manner in which a party has pursued or defended the case or a particular allegation or issue; and
vi) whether a claimant who has succeeded in the claim, in whole or in part, exaggerated its claim.
Key findings
"No-one doubts that cases concerning vulnerable adults raise extremely challenging issues – for the professionals 'on the ground' making clinical and/or skilled judgments in the exercise of their responsibilities towards the person who, it is felt, would benefit from protection" [37].
The issue is particularly acute for Local Authorities, as here, which owe various duties towards a vulnerable person, such as PR, including those duties under section 42 of the Care Act 2014 (see [3]).
i) PR had recently disclosed aspects of her home life with her parents which gave the professional safeguarding and care agencies considerable concern about her future well-being should she return there [6], though I made no findings about this;ii) There was a suggestion in the documents that parental influence over her was disabling her from making true choices [6]. At that time, "PR was threatening to end her life if she did not receive protection" [6];
iii) "PR appeared to be a vulnerable person because of her range of mental health difficulties, and she was believed to be susceptible to coercive or controlling influence at home" [39]; in fact, PR was anxious that the Second and Third Respondents should not have access to some of the information (relevant to her) filed in support of this application [31]; this led to HHJ Hallam and, later, me adopting in this case, as it happens uncontroversially, a form of 'closed procedure' process;
iv) "[T]here was sufficient evidence that PR was confused in her thinking about her immediate future and/or was possibly being coerced and thus unable to make a decision of her own free-will; she was also suffering from a possible mental disorder" [43];
v) There was "significant pressure of time" to achieve protection for PR [7].
The consequence of all of the above is that I was "not in the least surprised that HHJ Hallam felt herself compelled to exercise the inherent jurisdiction to protect PR when the application was first presented to her, while time was taken to assess the situation" [39].
"… PR has started to withdraw her co-operation from the programmes and therapies designed to assist her, and has largely disengaged from professionals. It appears that she is worried that information she shares confidentially in the sessions and programmes will ultimately be disclosed to the court" [12].
Interestingly, it was the First Respondent's (i.e. PR's) case that the Local Authority should have used other (statutory) remedies against the Second and Third Respondents (instead of using the inherent jurisdiction) [18]; it was not her case that proceedings should not have been brought to regulate the behaviours of her parents.
Discussion