M (by his litigation friend TM) v Hackney London Borough Council and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 January 2011 |
| Date | 14 January 2011 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Sir Anthony May, President, Lord Justice Toulson and Lord Justice Jackson
Hospital managers were entitled to rely on an apparently valid application for the admission of a patient under the Mental Health Act 1983. Where such an application was subsequently found to be unlawful, the defence provided to the approved mental health professional who had completed it would be read down under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to permit a claim for compensation by the person wrongfully detained.
The Court of Appeal so held, allowing the appeal of the claimant, TTM, suing by his litigation friend TM, from the dismissal by Mr Justice CollinsUNK ([2010] EWHC 1349 (Admin)) of his claim against the defendants, Hackney London Borough Council and East London NHS Foundation Trust, seeking, i nter alia, damages for unlawful detention or, if it were held that his claim for compensation was barred under the 1983 Act, a declaration of incompatability with article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The claimant was detained under section 3 of the 1983 Act on the basis of an appli cation under section 6(3) which had, as subsequently appeared, been unlawfully completed by an approved mental health professional, albeit in good faith, the responsibility for whose action was accepted by Hackney London Borough Council. On February 11, 2009, Mr Justice Burton granted the claimant' s application for habeas corpus. Mr Richard Gordon, QC and Ms Amy Street for the claimant; Mr Alexander Ruck Keene for Hackney; Mr Neil Garnham, QC and Mr Sydney Chawatama for the hospital managers; Mr Jason Coppel for the Secretary of State for Health, intervening.
THE PRESIDENT said that the hospital trust had acted lawfully under section 6(3) of the 1983 Act which was intended to enable hospital managers, possibly at short notice, to admit someone they had reasonable cause to believe was in immediate need of treatment. Parliament considered i t reasonable for hospital managers to be able to rely on an application which appeared to have been completed in accordance with the requirements of the Act, and in section...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hillingdon London Borough Council v Neary and Others
...ER 577, [1988] AC 806, [1988] 2 WLR 398, [1988] 2 FLR 139, HL. M (by his litigation friend TM) v Hackney London BC[2011] EWCA Civ 4, [2011] 3 All ER 529. P (MIG) v Surrey CC[2011] EWCA Civ 190, [2011] 1 FCR 559, [2011] 2 FLR 583; affg[2010] EWHC 785 R (on the application of H) v Secretary o......
-
R (Youssef) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
... ... committee of the United Nations Security Council, known as the Resolution 1267 Committee or ... 3 The appellant's case, with others, came before this court in earlier judicial ... interference was authorised (see R (M) v Hackney London Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 4 ; ... ...
-
The North West Regional Health Authority v Cheryl Miller
...where there is an intentional deprivation of a person's liberty without lawful justification (see M (by his litigation friend TM) v Hackney London Borough Council and others [2011] 3 All ER 529 at para 33). Section 15 of the Act provides lawful justification and authority for deprivation o......
-
The Central Tenders Board and another v White (trading as White Construction Services) (Montserrat)
... ... Appeal No 0082 of 2014 Privy Council From the Court of Appeal of the Eastern ... (such as Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [1992] 2 AC 1) ... 20 The ... of the Court of Appeal in Regina (M) v Hackney London Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 4, ... ...