Medical Treatment: Decisions and the Law

5. Going to Court

Update to para 5.35, page 160: Costs

Sophia Roper


In MR v SR and Bury Clinical Commissioning Group [2016] EWCOP 54[1], a rare costs award has been made in a medical case in the Court of Protection. The substantive application in this case was brought by SR’s daughter, MR, in the face of the Clinical Commissioning Group’s (‘CCG’) failure to do so. The CCG opposed the application and maintained its opposition until the Official Solicitor changed his position, after the first day of evidence. The parties then agreed that the application should be granted but Hayden J considered it necessary to hear a further day’s evidence from the three instructed experts before reaching his conclusion. MR sought her costs of bringing the application.

Update to para 5.30, page 152: Deprivation of Liberty para 5.31, page 153: How are proceedings begun?

Sophia Roper


The substantive judgment in Briggs (please see our previous update) has received wide publicity. Shortly before the final hearing, Charles J considered as a preliminary issue whether Mr Briggs’ wife was properly able to bring proceedings under s21A MCA 2005 seeking a declaration that it was in Mr Briggs’ best interest for artificial feeding and hydration to be withdrawn. S21A MCA is the provision under which applications are brought to challenge a standard authorisation, and is more typically used – so far – where P has been placed in a care home and objects to the restrictions on his/her liberty arising out of implementation of the care plan.


You can read selected extracts from this chapter here.

Return to index