•It is essential for anyone embarking on litigation, however it is to be funded, to be properly advised about the likely costs risks at the start of the case and throughout it.

•Any decision to depart from the general rule will turn on the facts of the individual case.

•A costs order can, in a suitable case, be made against a legally aided party and ultimately against the Lord Chancellor.

•The fact that a party seeking costs is legally aided is not relevant.1WBC v CP [2012] EWHC 1944 (COP).

•Costs do not necessarily follow the outcome of the case, although they may do.2G v E (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor) and F [2010] EWHC 3385 (Fam), (2011) 14 CCLR 140, [2010] COPLR Con Vol 454; Hillingdon LBC v Neary [2011] EWHC 3522 (COP), [2011] COPLR Con Vol 632; AH v (1) Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust, (2) Ealing Primary Care Trust [2011] EWHC 3524 (COP, [2012] COPLR 327.

•Bad faith is not necessary to establish a reason to depart from the general rule.3G v E [2010] EWHC 3385 (Fam), (2011) 14 CCLR 140, [2010] COPLR Con Vol 454; AH and others [2013] EWHC 2410 (COP).

•Refusal to co-operate prior to the issue of proceedings may be relevant to costs at the conclusion of the case.4AH and others [2013] EWHC 2410 (COP).

•A failure to comply with the provisions of the MCA 2005 or other statutes or guidance may be relevant to the question of costs.5AH and others [2013] EWHC 2410 (COP); WBC v CP [2012] EWHC 1944 (COP).

•Failure to comply with the rules or the court’s case management directions may justify the court in departing from the general rule.6COPR Pr1.4(3).

•A party that refuses to modify its position in the face of the evidence may be vulnerable to a costs order.7AH and others [2013] EWHC 2410 (COP); A Local Authority v HS [2013] EWHC 2410 (COP).

•Public bodies can be expected to know the risks of litigation and warnings are not pre-conditions for costs orders against public bodies, though warnings may be appropriate before costs are awarded against private individuals, especially those acting in person.8AH and others [2013] EWHC 2410 (COP); SC v LBH [2010] EWHC B29 (COP), sub nom Re RC (deceased) [2010] COPLR Con Vol 1022.

•There are particular obligations on public bodies bringing applications in the context of safeguarding concerns, and failure to take appropriate steps to consider the evidential basis for such applications can give rise to an award of costs against them: see further chapter 23.

•The risk of a costs order should not deter applicants from bringing disputes to the court for resolution.9G v E [2010] EWHC 3385 (Fam), (2011) 14 CCLR 140, [2010] COPLR Con Vol 454; AH and others [2013] EWHC 2410 (COP); Re HS [2013] EWHC 2410 (COP).

•Failure to bring a dispute to court in a timely fashion may be a relevant factor leading to a costs order.10Hillingdon v Neary [2011] EWHC 3522 (COP), [2011] COPLR Con Vol 632; AH and others [2013] EWHC 2410 (COP).

•An unreasonable refusal to engage in ADR may leave a party vulnerable to a costs order.11Mann v Mann [2014] EWHC 537 (Fam).

•Legal representatives should be alert to the need to advise the court and seek directions when another party has failed to take necessary steps which might put a hearing at risk.12Re L [2016] EWFC B8.