The claimants had sought court orders against the hospital to secure continuing life-supporting treatment for their daughter who had been born very severely disabled. The Trust now sought their costs from the various actions.
Held: The parents should pay nothing: ‘We are very conscious of the fact that W continues to be treated by the Trust. It would, in our view, be an aggravating factor in the relationship between Mr and Mrs W and the Trust were they to be engaged in ongoing litigation over costs’ and ‘the whole exercise set out in this judgment could have been avoided if the parties had taken proper note of Laws LJ’s observations set out in paragraph 11 above. The point should not have been contentious. Whether or not the Trust succeeds against the Legal Services Commission is not a matter for this court, nor is it of any personal financial interest to Mr. and Mrs. W. Instead of a sensible recognition that, in a case of this nature, the Trust was entitled to ask that the LSC reimburse it a relatively small proportion of the costs it has expended on this case overall, we have had a plethora of skeleton arguments and a full hearing.’
Laws LJ, Wall LJ, Lloyd LJ
 EWCA Civ 529, Times 08-Jun-2006,  5 Costs LR 742
Access to Justice Act 1999 11(1)
England and Wales
See Also – Wyatt and Another v Portsmouth Hospital NHS and Another CA 12-Oct-2005
The appellants’ daughter had been born with very severe disabilities. Her doctors obtained an order allowing them a discretion not to ventilate her to keep her alive if necessary. She had improved, but the family now sought leave to appeal an order . .
Cited – Regina (Gunn) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Regina (Kelly) v Same Regina (Zahid Khan) v Same CA 14-Jun-2001
The new Regulations and court rules expressly reserved to a costs judge the decision about whether a costs order should be made against the Legal Services Commission. The former practice of the trial judge making this decision must no longer apply. . .
Cited – Masterman-Lister v Brutton and Co and Another (2) CA 16-Jan-2003
The claimant had been funded for a personal injury claim under legal aid. He appealed against a decision that he was not a ‘patient’ and that he had been fully capable of managing and administering his affairs for many years. He lost. The . .
Cited – In re T (A Child), (Order for Costs) CA 21-Mar-2005
The court re-affirmed what were described as the ‘well-established principles’ relating to costs in private law applications. . .
Cited – Burke, Regina (on the Application of) v General Medical Council and others (Official Solicitor and others intervening) CA 28-Jul-2005
The claimant suffered a congenital degenerative brain condition inevitably resulting in a future need to receive nutrition and hydration by artificial means. He was concerned that a decision might be taken by medical practitioners responsible for . .
Cited – In Re O (A Minor) (Costs:Liability of Legal Aid Board); orse Re O (A Minor) (Legal Aid Costs) CA 25-Nov-1996
Grandparents should have conceded at an early stage in the Court of Appeal that an order made by the judge in proceedings relating to their grandchild had been made without jurisdiction.
Held: The court considered the procedures for applying . .
Cited – Floyd and Another v Legal Services Commission QBD 28-Apr-2010
The claimant had succeeded in an action against her legally aided opponent, but then delayed in making her claim for costs against the respondent. The costs judge said that the CPR did not apply, and that he had no discretion to extend the time . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 January 2021; Ref: scu.241409