Gray Areas in Tort: Illegality and Authority after Patel v Mirza

Published date01 September 2021
AuthorJames C. Fisher
Date01 September 2021
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12637
bs_bs_banner
Modern Law Review
DOI:10.1111/1468-2230.12637
Gray Areas in Tort: Illegality and Authority after Patel v
Mirza
James C. Fisher
This comment describes and critiques the decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court
in Henderson vDorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust. It considers in particular the
Court’s position on the eect of Patel vMirza on previous illegality case law. It analyses the
enduring tensions between Patel and the House of Lords’ decision in Gray vThames Trains,
which the Supreme Court in Henderson upheld as enduringly authoritative notwithstanding the
rearticulation of the illegality principle in Pat el. It assesses the logical problems in the Supreme
Court’s position, and contextualises it as an attempt to mitigate Pate l ‘s potentially disruptive
eects on legal certainty.
INTRODUCTION AND FACTS
The facts in Henderson vDorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust1
(Henderson) were heartbreaking. Ms Henderson had suered from paranoid
schizophrenia, or schizoaective disorder,for many years. While living substan-
tially independently under a Community Treatment Order,she f atally stabbed
her mother during an acute psychotic episode.She pleaded guilty to manslaugh-
ter by reason of diminished responsibility,to which the prosecution had agreed
on the basis of psychiatric evidence. The Crown Court made orders for her de-
tention in psychiatric medical facilities.2Ms Henderson subsequently sued the
defendant NHS Trust in negligence.The Trust admitted having breached their
duty of care to Ms Henderson by failing to rehospitalise her when her psycho-
logical condition deteriorated. The Trust also accepted that her mother’s death
would not have occurred but for this breach of duty.
Ms Henderson sought damages from the Trust in respect of: (i) personal
injury in the form of depression and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder occasioned
by killing her mother, (ii) the cost of associated psychotherapy, (iii) the future
cost of a care manager or support worker,(iv) loss of amenity, (v) the (partial)
loss of an inheritance under her mother’s will by operation of the forfeiture
rule, and (vi) loss of liberty due to her detention. The Trust argued that all such
damages were precluded by the illegality rule, since all were consequences of
Ms Henderson’s own criminal action, or the criminal penalty imposed by the
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law,Sophia University (Tokyo,Japan).I am g rateful for the reviewer’s
helpful comments. Remaining errors are my own.
1Henderson vDorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKSC 43.
© 2021 The Author.The Modern Law Review © 2021 The Modern Law Review Limited. (2021) 84(5) MLR 1122–1136

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT