Pallant Chambers


Fitzgerald v Knee - Court of Protection

  • REF: Fitzgerald v Knee
  • DATE: December 2015


MA (Oxon), BCL (Oxon)
Called: 2007
View Profile

Practice Areas


    Tom Worthen successfully argued (on behalf of the Respondent) that the costs of an application to prevent the sale of a protected person\'s property should be dealt with according to the provisions of r.157 of the Court of Protection Rules (health and welfare) as opposed to r.156 (property and affairs) on the grounds that the issues before the Court were in reality matters of welfare. As a result, the Applicant\'s claim for costs was dismissed. The case is currently being appealed by the Applicant on grounds that it raises matters of general public importance as to which no substantial attention has been given in previous case law, with the aim of providing guidance for future litigants in the Court of Protection considering making applications touching on matters of property and affairs.