Clunis v Camden and Islington Health Authority
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 December 1996 |
| Date | 12 December 1996 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Before Mr Richard Mawrey, QC
Damages - mental health - allegation of failure to treat - public policy
A party claiming negligence based on an allegation that the defendant caused, or failed properly to treat severe mental disorder could, in principle, recover as a head of claim damages from self-inflicted harm. If that harm itself resulted from harming others in a criminal manner, public policy did not preclude him recovering damages for the harm to himself even though he was guilty of a crime.
There was no rule of public policy whereby a party who could recover damages for self-inflicted harm was precluded from seeking indemnity for damages he had to pay others as a result of the activities, criminal or otherwise, which constituted the self-inflicted injury.
Mr Richard Mawrey, QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the Queen's Bench Division so stated in a reserved judgment when dismissing a summons by Camden and Islington Health Authority seeking an order under Order 18, rule 19(1)(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court to dismiss an action for damages brought by Christopher Clunis, by his next friend Christopher Prince, on the basis that it disclosed no cause of action.
Mr Clunis, a mental patient, while discharged into the care of the health authority had killed a stranger, Mr Jonathan Zito. He sought damages for negligence.
The health authority argued that in order to establish the injury and loss asserted Mr Clunis had to rely on his avowedly criminal act and that public policy would not permit him to do so.
Mr Stephen Irwin for Mr Clunis; Mr John Grace, QC, for the health authority.
HIS LORDSHIP, after reviewing a substantial body of authorities from the fields of contract, inheritance, family and tort summarised his conclusions as follows:
1 The maxim of ex turpi causa non oritur actio (no right of action arises from a base cause), was strictly speaking, confined to contract law.
2 The current law relating to the maxim was stated in Tinsley v MilliganELR(1994] 1 AC 340). Where the contract involved an illegal purpose of both parties that purpose placed an absolute bar on enforcement of the contract itself. There was no room for any application of the public conscience test.
3 Where, in contract, the illegal purpose or conduct was that of one party to the contract only, the courts would exercise a judgment based on public policy as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hewison v Meridian Shipping Services Pte Ltd
...that that is not the relevant principle. Indeed such authority as there is seems to me to be to the contrary. Thus in Clunis v Camden and Islington Heath Authority [1998] QB 978 the claimant argued that he would not have committed manslaughter but for the defendant's negligence. This court ......
-
R v Richmond London Borough Council, ex parte Watson. ; R v Manchester City Council, ex parte Stennett. ; R v Harrow London Borough Council, ex parte Cobham. ; R v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, ex parte Armstrong
... ... 3 In 1982 Parliament placed a duty on health authorities and local social services authorities to ... It shall be the duty of the Health Authority and of the local social services authority to provide, in ... There is no issue on this point. In Clunis v Camden and Islington Health Authority [1998] QB 978, 992 ... ...
-
EH (A protected party, by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust
... ... to a hospital order under s 37 of the Mental Health Act, with restrictions pursuant to s 41. The claimant ... of public policy and the defendant relies on the authority of Clunis v Camden & Islington Health Authority (1997)." ... ...
-
Niru Battery Manufacturing Company v Milestone Trading Ltd (No 2)
... ... me to be compelling and, for my part, absent any authority to the contrary, I would follow it. Moreover, I agree with ... ...