Martine v South East Kent Health Authority
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 February 1993 |
| Date | 25 February 1993 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Dillon, Lord Justice Leggatt and Lord Justice Hirst
Negligence - registered homes - careless investigation by health authority
There was no cause of action in negligence for the alleged careless investigation by an area health authority into a registered nursing home leading to an urgent application under section 30 of the Registered Homes Act 1984 for cancellation of registration.
The Court of Appeal so held in dismissing an appeal brought by the plaintiff, Josephine Martine, against the decision of Mr Justice Owen in the Queen's Bench Division on April 2, 1992 granting the application of the defendants, South East Kent Health Authority, to strike out two paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim alleging a duty of care.
Mr Roger Ellis for the plaintiff; Mr Christopher Beaumont for the defendants.
LORD JUSTICE DILLON said that section 30 of the 1984 Act was intended to provide an urgent procedure in cases where the area health authority believed there was a serious risk to the life, health or welfare of patients in a registered nursing home.
The check on that was that the secretary of state or the area health authority acting on the secretary of state's behalf was intended to act properly in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity.
Mr Ellis submitted that the reality of the situation was that a justice of the peace would simply rubber stamp what was put before him because if an area health authority asked for cancellation of registration because of a supposed risk to the life, health or welfare or patients then the justice of the peace could not do otherwise than make the order sought for fear of the risk that a disaster might occur a few days later.
In his Lordship's judgment, that was in effect saying that the checks and balances that the statute provided would not work because justices of the peace did not have the courage to fulfil their duty.
If the area health authority failed to put an adequate case before the justice of the peace it was the justice's duty to ask for more information or reject the case.
There was no warrant consistent with Lord Keith of Kinkel in Peabody Fund v Sir Lindsay Parkinson LtdELR ([1985] AC 210) for an extension of the law of duty of care.
A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jain v Trent Strategic Health Authority
...them a duty of care." Both their Lordships cited with approval the Business Computers case. 32 Finally I should refer to Martine v South East Kent Health Authority (1993) 20 BMLR 51, a decision of the Court of Appeal on the very question in issue in the present case, namely, whether a commo......
-
Jain v Trent Strategic Health Authority
...Trent did not contend that matters in issue were non-justiciable. Nor does the judge refer to the decision of this court in Martine v South East Kent Health Authority (1993) 20 BMLR 51, considered below at [75] to [77] and [97] to [99]. In Martine, this court decided, in a manner binding on......
-
Lonrho Plc and Others v Fayed and Others (No 5)
...this Court of Spring v Guardian Assurance plc [1993] 1 All ER 273, which was followed by another division of this Court in Martine v South East Kent Health Authority, decided on the 25th February 1993. Those cases applied the law as stated by Sir Robin Cooke P in the New Zealand case of Bel......
-
FXJ v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...“slipshod” investigation, Lord Scott said as follows: “35 My Lords, the cases in this second line of authority, including the Martine case 20 BMLR 51, which I regard as having been rightly decided, establish, in my opinion, that where the preparation for, or the commencement or conduct of, ......