Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council v PR

In proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction to protect a vulnerable adult, costs remain a matter for judicial discretion. The general rule that the unsuccessful party pays does not apply automatically where the proceedings achieve their protective purpose but end without a significant substantive order.

Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 44.2, the court must consider all the circumstances, including the parties’ conduct, the issues on which they succeeded, and whether it was reasonable to raise or contest particular issues. In an urgent safeguarding case, it may be reasonable for a local authority to seek protective orders without first attempting voluntary arrangements, especially where disclosure and negotiation could expose the vulnerable person to pressure.

The local authority commenced proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction in March 2019 concerning the protection of PR, a vulnerable adult. The proceedings were brought amid concerns about her welfare, possible coercive influence within the family, and the urgency created by her impending discharge from hospital.

The substantive proceedings later concluded when the local authority applied to bring them to an end after the protective regime had become counterproductive. No party was clearly successful or unsuccessful, and no significant substantive order remained. PR’s father and mother applied for their costs, arguing that the local authority should have attempted undertakings or a written agreement before issuing proceedings. The local authority opposed the applications. The issue was the appropriate costs order under the applicable civil costs rules.

1. Applicable costs regime. Section 51(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 gives the court discretion as to costs, subject to the applicable rules. Proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction concerning a vulnerable adult, although heard in the Family Division, were not “family proceedings” for the purposes of rule 2.1 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010. The Civil Procedure Rules 1998 therefore applied.
2. Relevant discretion. Rule 44.2 required consideration of all the circumstances. Relevant matters included the conduct of the parties, partial success, whether it was reasonable to raise or contest an issue, the manner in which the case was pursued, and any exaggeration of a claim. There was no automatic application of the general rule where the outcome did not identify a successful and unsuccessful party.
3. Reasonableness of the application. On the information available when proceedings began, the local authority reasonably considered that notifying the parents before applying might expose PR to undue pressure. The safeguarding concerns were acute, the available information was limited, and there was significant time pressure. It was therefore reasonable to seek protective orders rather than first attempt voluntary agreements.
4. Conduct during the proceedings. The local authority responded appropriately as circumstances changed. It modified its position, considered discharge of an injunction, and sought to conclude the proceedings once the protective regime became counterproductive. The fact that the parents incurred expense did not justify transferring those costs to the local authority.
5. Order. There was no obvious successful party and no justification for a costs order against the local authority. The proper order was no order for costs.

First-instance decision. The judgment records earlier substantive proceedings determined by the same court under [2019] EWHC 2305 (Fam).