MET

This case involved several applications concerning the capacity of an adult, MET, and her management of her property. The applications were brought by MJ, who alleged that MET had lost capacity and that an Enduring Power of Attorney was invalid. MET and MK, another Attorney, opposed the applications. The applications were dismissed by the Tribunal, which found that MET had capacity for all matters. The Tribunal was required to determine the costs of the proceedings, which are within the Tribunal's discretion under the relevant legislation.

The court considered whether the costs should follow the event, meaning that the losing party should pay the costs of the winning party. The court also considered whether there were any exceptional circumstances that would justify departing from this general rule. The court found that MJ's applications were groundless and unsupportable in fact, and that he unreasonably failed to acknowledge the findings of the investigation report of the Public Guardian. The court also found that MET and MK were unreasonably required to meet applications that MJ should have known had no foundation.

The court ordered that MJ pay MET's costs of $3,017.00 and MK's costs of $7,284.00 within 14 days of the date of the order. The court reduced the costs sought by MET and MK by 25% to reflect the findings regarding the four applications, and to take into account the ongoing conflict between MK and another Attorney, MP, which took up time in the hearing. The court did not find exceptional circumstances to justify departing from the general rule that costs follow the event.

This case highlights the importance of providing evidence to support assertions in legal proceedings, and the potential consequences of bringing groundless or unsupportable applications. It also demonstrates the Tribunal's discretion in determining costs and its consideration of exceptional circumstances.