Bostridge v Oxleas Nhs Foundation Trust
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Kitchin |
| Judgment Date | 01 July 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWCA Civ 1005 |
| Date | 01 July 2014 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: B2/2014/0611 |
[2014] EWCA Civ 1005
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM CENTRAL LONDON CIVIL JUSTICE CENTRE
(HHJ HAND QC)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Kitchin
Case No: B2/2014/0611
Mr Drabble QC & Mr Edwards (instructed by RCT Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented
This is an application for permission to appeal against the order of His Honour Judge Hand QC dated 5 February 2014 giving judgment for the appellant but awarding him only nominal damages in respect of his claim for false imprisonment by the respondent. The application for permission to appeal was refused on the papers by Floyd LJ by order dated 2 April 2014. The appellant has requested that refusal be reconsidered at an oral hearing which has come on before me today. The appellant has been represented at this hearing by Mr Drabble QC and Mr Edwards.
The facts were agreed and are set out by the judge in his clear and concise judgment. In short, the appellant is a schizophrenic who has from time to time been admitted to hospital and detained pursuant to section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
On 19 August 2009 the respondent recalled the appellant to hospital purportedly pursuant to section 17E(6) of the Act on the basis that he was the subject of a valid Community Treatment Order (CTO). However, the CTO was in fact unlawful because when it was made the appellant had been discharged from hospital.
From 19 August 2009 the appellant was unlawfully detained by the respondent for a total period of 442 days. It was not until 3 November 2010 that the unlawfulness of his detention was appreciated. On that day he was released but immediately admitted and detained pursuant to section 3 of the Act.
It was accepted that throughout the period of his unlawful detention the appellant was ill. He never appreciated that his detention was unlawful and he was treated in the same way that he would have been had his detention been lawful. An independent psychiatrist reported that there was no evidence that his clinical condition had improved...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mrs Jean Edwards v Hugh James Ford Simey (A Firm)
...legal issue”, which he said was derived from a misapplication of the approach described by Rix LJ in Dixon v Clement Jones Solicitors [2014] EWCA Civ 1005, at paragraph 27: “There is no requirement in such a loss of a chance case to fight out a trial within a trial, indeed the authorities s......