Category

After-care

Case and summary Date added Categories
R (CXF) v Central Bedfordshire Council [2018] EWCA Civ 2852The patient's mother drove weekly to accompany her son on escorted community leave bus trips. When he turned 18, the Children Act 1989 funding ceased and she sought judicial review of the refusal to fund her travel costs under MHA 1983 s117. (1) The patient did not "cease to be detained" or "leave hospital" within the meaning of s117(1) when on leave and so was not a person to whom s117 applied, and also the services provided did not constitute "after-care services" within the meaning of s117(6). (2) In other cases, such as a patient living in the community on a either a full-time or part-time trial basis, the s117 duty could arise. (3) (Obiter) It was difficult to see how s117 could have covered the mother's costs as there was no evidence that she was authorised to provide services on behalf of any CCG or LA. (4) The MHA Code of Practice is analogous to delegated legislation (which can only be used as an aid to interpretation if it formed part of Parliament's background knowledge when legislating) and so cannot be used to construe s117(1) which is part of the original text. (5) The court was critical of and provided guidance in relation to the quality of pleadings in statutory interpretation cases. (6) Even if the evidence provided by Mind's QC in written submissions had been relevant, it would not excuse the flagrant breach of the court's order not to stray into the giving of evidence. The matters which are admissible are so limited in statutory interpretation cases that it may be that there is nothing useful an intervenor can contribute. 2018‑12‑20 14:51:52 2018 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript


LB Richmond v W [2001] QB 370 — "These four appeals involve an important issue as to whether charges can be levied by local authorities in relation to accommodation provided by them under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to persons who have been discharged from detention under section 3 of that Act." 2018‑05‑13 22:46:13 2000 cases, After-care, No summary, Transcript


Richards v Worcestershire County Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1998, [2017] MHLO 38 — Executive summary and conclusion from judgment: "The claimant has a long history of mental illness, following frontal lobe injury which he sustained in a road traffic accident 33 years ago. He received damages following the accident, which his deputy administers. The claimant was compulsorily detained in hospital under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in 2004. Following his discharge from hospital he has received various after-care services. The claimant's deputy funded the services between 2004 and 2013. The defendants have funded those services since 2013. The claimant by his deputy now seeks to recover the costs of the after-care services between 2004 and 2013 (including 18 months residential placement) on the grounds that the defendants are liable for the costs under section 117 of the 1983 Act. The defendants applied to strike out the claim as an abuse of process. The judge rejected that application. The defendants now appeal on two grounds: first, the claimant should have brought his claim by judicial review; secondly, the defendants' alleged non-compliance with section 117 of the 1983 Act does not entitle the claimant to recover damages for unjust enrichment or restitution. The first ground of appeal raises a clean point of law, capable of resolution on the basis of the pleadings. I decide that point against the defendants. The second ground of appeal (despite its formulation as a point of law) raises questions of fact which are hotly contested. This is not, therefore, suitable for resolution on an application to strike out. In the result, therefore, if my Lords agree, this appeal will be dismissed." 2017‑12‑13 23:00:29 2017 cases, After-care, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript


Richards v Worcestershire County Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1998, [2017] MHLO 38 — Executive summary and conclusion from judgment: "The claimant has a long history of mental illness, following frontal lobe injury which he sustained in a road traffic accident 33 years ago. He received damages following the accident, which his deputy administers. The claimant was compulsorily detained in hospital under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in 2004. Following his discharge from hospital he has received various after-care services. The claimant's deputy funded the services between 2004 and 2013. The defendants have funded those services since 2013. The claimant by his deputy now seeks to recover the costs of the after-care services between 2004 and 2013 (including 18 months residential placement) on the grounds that the defendants are liable for the costs under section 117 of the 1983 Act. The defendants applied to strike out the claim as an abuse of process. The judge rejected that application. The defendants now appeal on two grounds: first, the claimant should have brought his claim by judicial review; secondly, the defendants' alleged non-compliance with section 117 of the 1983 Act does not entitle the claimant to recover damages for unjust enrichment or restitution. The first ground of appeal raises a clean point of law, capable of resolution on the basis of the pleadings. I decide that point against the defendants. The second ground of appeal (despite its formulation as a point of law) raises questions of fact which are hotly contested. This is not, therefore, suitable for resolution on an application to strike out. In the result, therefore, if my Lords agree, this appeal will be dismissed." 2017‑12‑13 23:00:29 2017 cases, After-care, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript


Tinsley v Manchester City Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1704, [2017] MHLO 36 — "The question in this appeal is whether a person who has been compulsorily detained in a hospital for mental disorder under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and has then been released from detention but still requires "after-care services" is entitled to require his local authority to provide such services at any time before he has exhausted sums reflecting the costs of care awarded to him in a judgment in his favour against a negligent tortfeasor." 2017‑11‑08 21:55:03 2017 cases, After-care, ICLR summary, Transcript


R (CXF) v Central Bedfordshire Council [2017] EWHC 2311 (Admin) — "The central question raised in these proceedings is whether either or both of the Defendants has a duty under s117 of the MHA to cover the costs of the Claimant's mother's visits, on the ground that they constitute "after-care services" within the meaning of that provision. ... The specific issues that arise are as follows: (a) Whether the duty to provide after-care services under s117 is triggered when the Claimant is granted leave of absence from the Hospital under s17 of the MHA for an escorted bus trip. This issue turns on the question whether, when granted such leave of absence, the Claimant satisfies the two pre-conditions set out in s. 117(1), namely, (i) that he has "ceased to be detained" under s3 of the MHA, and (ii) that he has "left hospital"; (b) If so, whether the after-care services which are to be provided pursuant to s117(6) of the MHA may as a matter of principle include funding to cover the Claimant's mother's transport costs; (c) If so, whether on the facts of this case there is a duty to provide the funding sought as an after-care service under s117; (d) If so, whether the duty to provide the services falls on the First and Second Defendants jointly, or in fact falls on the First Defendant jointly with Bedfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group, which was originally joined as a Defendant to these proceedings, but against which proceedings were discontinued in March 2017." 2017‑09‑20 21:41:14 2017 cases, After-care, Cases, Mind summary, No summary, Transcript


Tinsley v Manchester City Council [2016] EWHC 2855 (Admin), [2016] MHLO 44 — "Thus there is a fundamental issue between the parties which they require the court to resolve, which is whether or not it is lawful for the defendant to refuse to provide after-care services to the claimant under s117 on the basis that he has no need of such provision because he is able to fund it himself from his personal injury damages. The claimant's position is that this is unlawful, and represents a thinly disguised attempt to charge through the back door in this particular category of cases when the House of Lords has confirmed in Stennett that it is impermissible to do so in any circumstances. The defendant's position is that to allow the claimant's deputy to claim the provision of after-care services on his behalf under s.117 would offend against the principle against double recovery which has been established in the decided cases in the personal injury field, most notably by the Court of Appeal in Crofton v NHSLA [2007] EWCA Civ 71, [2007] 1 WLR 923 and Peters v East Midlands SHA [2009] EWCA Civ 145, [2010] QB 48." 2016‑11‑11 23:52:42 2016 cases, After-care, No summary, Transcript


Richards v Worcestershire County Council [2016] EWHC 1954 (Ch), [2016] MHLO 43 — "The present proceedings were issued on 6 March 2015. They seek to recover sums totalling £644,645.87, which, it is said, were spent by Mr Richards' deputy on his behalf on providing him with care. The claim is based on section 117 of the 1983 Act. It is Mr Richards' case that section 117 applied when he was released from hospital in 2004 and that, accordingly, the defendants had a duty to provide him with after-care services. He contends that that duty extended to the provision of the various services which have thus far been paid for privately. ... There are essentially two issues to consider: (i) Is it in principle possible for Mr Richards to bring a restitutionary claim? (ii) If so, can the present claim be pursued otherwise than by way of judicial review?" 2016‑10‑12 22:36:23 2016 cases, After-care, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii


Richards v Worcestershire County Council [2016] EWHC 1954 (Ch), [2016] MHLO 43 — "The present proceedings were issued on 6 March 2015. They seek to recover sums totalling £644,645.87, which, it is said, were spent by Mr Richards' deputy on his behalf on providing him with care. The claim is based on section 117 of the 1983 Act. It is Mr Richards' case that section 117 applied when he was released from hospital in 2004 and that, accordingly, the defendants had a duty to provide him with after-care services. He contends that that duty extended to the provision of the various services which have thus far been paid for privately. ... There are essentially two issues to consider: (i) Is it in principle possible for Mr Richards to bring a restitutionary claim? (ii) If so, can the present claim be pursued otherwise than by way of judicial review?" 2016‑10‑12 22:36:23 2016 cases, After-care, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii


Richards v Worcestershire County Council [2016] EWHC 1954 (Ch), [2016] MHLO 43 — "The present proceedings were issued on 6 March 2015. They seek to recover sums totalling £644,645.87, which, it is said, were spent by Mr Richards' deputy on his behalf on providing him with care. The claim is based on section 117 of the 1983 Act. It is Mr Richards' case that section 117 applied when he was released from hospital in 2004 and that, accordingly, the defendants had a duty to provide him with after-care services. He contends that that duty extended to the provision of the various services which have thus far been paid for privately. ... There are essentially two issues to consider: (i) Is it in principle possible for Mr Richards to bring a restitutionary claim? (ii) If so, can the present claim be pursued otherwise than by way of judicial review?" 2016‑10‑12 22:36:23 2016 cases, After-care, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii


R (Worcestershire CC) v Essex CC [2014] EWHC 3557 (Admin), [2014] MHLO 104In this case Essex argued that VC lacked capacity to have consented to her place of residence, and therefore had not been resident in Essex for the purposes of s117. The result would be either that VC had no place of residence, or remained resident at the last place she lived in before she lost capacity to decide for herself. They were unsuccessful. Extract from judgment: "I do not however read these passages as deciding that a person cannot acquire residence in a place unless he does so voluntarily. Still less do they decide that residence may only be acquired as a result of a decision made by a person with capacity, or lawfully on his behalf by someone else. ... The context and purpose of s117 point in my judgment to an interpretation that is as straightforward as possible, the residence of a person being prima facie the place in which he was in fact living eating and sleeping immediately prior to his detention. There may be reasons to conclude that he has not lost an established residence elsewhere, for example because of imprisonment or because he is only temporarily away from that residence on holiday, but if he has no such other place, and in the absence of some other special factor, his actual place of abode is his residence. This would be so whether he is there voluntarily or involuntarily, and whether any lack of voluntariness is caused by his will being overborne (eg on imprisonment) or because a decision he has in fact made is vitiated by lack of capacity, or if the decision has in reality been taken on his behalf by someone else, with or without lawful authority to do so." Some of these comments are obiter, and this is a first instance decision which did not refer to the earlier Court of Appeal decision in R (Wiltshire Council) v Hertfordshire CC [2014] EWCA Civ 712, [2014] MHLO 103. 2014‑11‑03 00:30:54 2014 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript


R (Wiltshire Council) v Hertfordshire CC [2014] EWCA Civ 712, [2014] MHLO 103The patient had been placed under a hospital order when he was resident in Wiltshire. He was conditionally discharged with a condition to reside in Hertfordshire. He had no wish to return to Wiltshire, but the Court of Appeal decided that the residence condition meant his place of residence was not voluntary, and decided that he was still 'resident' in Wiltshire. 2014‑11‑03 00:18:45 2014 cases, After-care, Brief summary, ICLR summary, Transcript


R (Afework) v LB Camden [2013] EWHC 1637 (Admin), [2013] MHLO 51The judge held that as a matter of law s117(2) is only engaged vis-à-vis accommodation if: '(i) The need for accommodation is a direct result of the reason that the ex-patient was detained in the first place ("the original condition"); (ii) The requirement is for enhanced specialised accommodation to meet needs directly arising from the original condition; and (iii) The ex-patient is being placed in the accommodation on an involuntary (in the sense of being incapacitated) basis arising as a result of the original condition.' No obvious reason is given for the third requirement, which is probably wrongly decided (or, as the COP Newsletter puts it, 'will fall to be considered again in due course'). 2013‑07‑04 21:53:24 2013 cases, After-care, Brief summary, MHLR summary, Transcript


R (BA) v LB Hillingdon [2012] EWHC 3050 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 148 — "This is a claim for interim relief brought on behalf of BA by his litigation friend, the official solicitor, against the London Borough of Hillingdon and Hillingdon National Health Service Primary Care Trust. The relief sought is first, an order that the claimant be provided with community care services under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 against both defendants and/or section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 against the first defendant, and secondly an order that the defendants jointly carry out assessments of his need of community care services under section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990." [Summary required.] 2012‑12‑20 21:57:39 2012 cases, After-care, Missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript


R (Sunderland City Council) v South Tyneside Council [2012] EWCA Civ 1232, [2012] MHLO 117The chronology in this s117 responsibility dispute was as follows: (a) SF lived at a college hall of residence in Sunderland, (b) she had voluntary admissions to various hospitals, (c) she was voluntarily admitted to a South Tyneside hospital, (d) the college terminated her placement and her licence to remain at the hall of residence, (e) she was detained under s2 then s3 at the South Tyneside hospital. (1) It was common ground that (a) the relevant s117 authority is the relevant LSSA for the area in which a patient is resident when he is detained (Hall), (b) during a period of detention the patient is not 'resident' for s117 purposes in the place of detention (JM); and (c) SF remained resident in Sunderland during the hospital admissions, at least until the Sunderland placement was terminated: therefore the question was where she was resident after that. (2) The High Court judge had decided she remained resident in Sunderland: (a) the South Tyneside placement was 'not compulsory, but it was closely analogous to a compulsory admission' so was to be disregarded, as if it were a place of detention; (b) she was not in hospital 'as part of the regular order of her life for the time being' (applying the test in Shah); (c) the loss of her Sunderland accommodation was not voluntary (as in JM) so did not affect her area of residence. (3) The Court of Appeal overturned that decision: (a) a voluntary period in the same hospital as subsequent detention is not to be treated the same as the period of detention; (b) the judge had wrongly followed the approach in Shah (which related to ordinary residence in a very different statutory context); the approach in Mohamed was more helpful (this included that 'so long as that place where he eats and sleeps is voluntarily accepted by him, the reason why he is there rather than somewhere else does not prevent that place from being his normal residence'); (c) decisively, voluntary and third-party termination of accommodation have the same effect: when the Sunderland accommodation ceased to be available SF was either resident in South Tyneside or not resident anywhere (and the case of 'no residence' is a last resort for extreme and clear circumstances). (4) The court raised two scenarios which it did not need to rule upon: (a) the last place a patient was eating and sleeping might not be his place if residence in some cases: for example if he were in prison, or temporarily away from an established home as a matter of choice (though a hospital stay of more than five years might not be considered temporary); (b) if a patient has a family home which is available upon discharge that might be his residence even if, because of action taken by the family, its location changes during the period of detention. 2012‑11‑24 20:50:37 2012 cases, After-care, Detailed summary, Transcript


R (Baisden) v Leicester City Council [2011] EWHC 3219 (Admin) — Section 117 and accommodation. [Summary required.] 2011‑12‑08 21:20:37 2011 cases, After-care, Missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript


R (Sunderland City Council) v South Tyneside Council [2011] EWHC 2355 (Admin)SF moved from a residential college in Sunderland (ESPA) to a hospital in South Tyneside (Rose Lodge), initially informally then under section 3; the placement in Sunderland was terminated because of the hospital stay. The judge drew 10 propositions from the law, and concluded that Sunderland remained the authority with aftercare responsibility under s117. Relevant considerations were that (a) the informal admission was close to being involuntary (through force of circumstances) and was in what was intended to be short-term accommodation, (b) the termination of the Sunderland placement was not voluntary, and (c) the Tyneside placement was not part of SF's regular order of life or for a settled purpose. [Caution: overturned on appeal.] 2011‑09‑27 20:05:21 2011 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript


R (Hertfordshire CC) v LB Hammersmith and Fulham [2011] EWCA Civ 77The appellant sought: 'A declaration that "is resident" in s117(3) Mental Health Act 1983 has the same (or substantially the same) meaning as "is ordinarily resident" under s24 National Assistance Act 1948, so that a person placed by a local authority under s21 NAA in the area of another local authority remains ordinarily resident in the area of the placing authority for the purposes of Part 3 NAA and s117(3) MHA.' The court refused to grant the declaration as: (1) Parliament must have deliberately chosen a different formula for s117; (2) s117 was intended to be a free-standing provision, not dependent on the 1948 Act; (3) there was no legitimate way to interpret 'resident' as excluding a placement under s21. The court noted that the decision is in line with recent government guidance, and that the Law Commission's current project provides a much better forum for considering and remedying any defects in the present law. 2011‑02‑17 22:33:28 2011 cases, After-care, Brief summary, ICLR summary, Transcript


R (Mwanza) v LB of Greenwich [2010] EWHC 1462 (Admin)The claimant was an illegal overstayer who tried to use a s3 admission eight years earlier to obtain free accommodation. (1) An after-care service under s117 must be a service that is necessary to meet a need arising from a person's mental disorder. It does not cover any and all services simply because those services do or may prevent deterioration of relapse of a mental condition. Employment and ordinary accommodation are common needs which do not arise from mental disorder, although mental disorder may give rise to a need for assistance in finding them. However, as a matter of law, ordinary accommodation could fall within s117, although it is difficult readily to envisage any practical examples. (2) On the facts, there could be no duty under s117 to provide what was sought. (3) In any event, eight years earlier a lawful decision had been made to discharge the s117 responsibilities of the local authority and the Trust, so no s117 duty arose. (4) Furthermore, it would be inappropriate to extend the time for this judicial review claim by eight years: the claimant was aware of the discharge decision and had taken no action. (5) The claimant was not in need of "care and attention" under s21 National Assistance Act 1948, as he was looked after by his wife and only needed accommodation. (6) In any event, the council were forbidden from providing s21 assistance because neither he nor his wife had leave to remain and refraining from providing assistance could not arguably breach their human rights. 2010‑06‑18 23:25:16 2010 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript


R (M) v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC and Sutton LBC [2010] EWHC 562 (Admin) — M moved from Hammersmith to a hostel in Sutton, but Hammersmith continued to pay; he was subsequently placed under s3 in a Sutton hospital and surrendered his tenancy; as he was resident in Sutton when admitted, Hammersmith was not responsible for future accommodation costs under s117. [Summary required.] 2010‑03‑15 20:29:21 2010 cases, After-care, No summary, Transcript


R (Stojak) v Sheffield City Council [2009] EWHC 3412 (Admin)Extension of time refused for JR application relating to charging for residential after-care services. 2009‑12‑23 16:00:38 2009 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript


R (Watson) v LB Richmond [1999] EWHC Admin 749Claimants' accommodation must be provided under section 117(2) and not under s21 National Assistance Act 1948; s117 not a gateway section; it follows that the Respondents are not entitled to charge the Applicants for their accommodation. 2009‑04‑11 20:50:30 1999 cases, After-care, Brief summary, MHLR summary, Missing from Bailii, Transcript


R (Stennett) v Manchester City Council [2002] UKHL 34S117 is not a gateway section; it contains no charging provision; therefore, no charge should be made for after-care under that section, including for caring residential accommodation. 2009‑04‑11 20:50:28 2002 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript


R (B) v London Borough of Camden [2004] EWHC 2348 (Admin) — Claimant sought damages breach of statutory duty under s117 causing delay after deferred conditional discharge. Permission refused. 2009‑01‑22 18:37:23 2004 cases, After-care, No summary, Transcript


R (W) v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] EWCA Civ 378 — After-care. 2008‑09‑13 06:29:28 2004 cases, After-care, No summary, Transcript


R (W) v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] EWHC 192 (Admin) — After-care. 2008‑09‑13 06:29:19 2003 cases, After-care, No summary, Transcript


R (B) v London Borough of Camden [2006] EWCA Civ 246 — Claimant sought damages breach of statutory duty under s117 causing delay after deferred conditional discharge. Unsuccessful appeal. 2008‑09‑13 06:24:16 2006 cases, After-care, No summary, Transcript


Kolanis v UK 517/02 [2005] ECHR 411 — Conditional discharge/Article 5. 2008‑09‑12 16:54:36 2005 cases, After-care, ECHR, No summary, Transcript


R (Hall) v MHRT [1999] EWHC Admin 351The provisions of s117 Mental Health Act 1983 are designed to ensure that there is always an aftercare authority, being the place where the patient resided before detention or, if there was no such residence, the place where the patient was to be sent on release; the duty as to aftercare included the provision of information to a Tribunal and so arose before discharge. [MHLR.] 2008‑09‑12 16:09:40 1999 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Discharge conditions, MHLR summary, Transcript


R (Hall) v MHRT [1999] EWCA Civ 2052The fact that there will be delay in the implementation of conditions in a conditional discharge does not mean that they are unlawful; it would have been open to the Tribunal to be proactive in adjourning for reports as to the progress of an aftercare package. [MHLR.] 2008‑09‑12 16:07:52 1999 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Discharge conditions, MHLR summary, Transcript


Decision of the Social Security Commissioner (2007) UKSSCSC CIS 3760 2006Refund of charges wrongfully made by social services authority for s117 residential after-care was not "arrears of income support", so was to be taken into acount as capital in determining the claimant's entitlement to benefit after the date of the payment; the claimant therefore lost her entitlement to income support. 2008‑02‑22 22:57:40 2007 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript


R (B) v London Borough of Lambeth [2006] EWHC 2362 (Admin)The council's decision to postpone an offer of re-housing until shortly before possession proceedings which it had instituted was putting off the inevitable and amounted to a breach of s117. 2008‑02‑22 18:58:57 2006 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript


R (B) v Camden London Borough Council [2005] EWHC 1366 (Admin)(1) Claimant unsuccessfully sought damages for breach of statutory duty under s117 causing delay after deferred conditional discharge. (2) A person who 'may be in need of such services' under s47 NHSCCA 1990 is a person 'who may be in need at the time, or who may be about to be in need': (a) this includes the situation after a deferred conditional discharge decision; (b) obiter, the judge inclined to the view that it also includes a patient who may reasonably be considered to be liable to have such an order made in an impending tribunal hearing. 2006‑04‑13 21:36:31 2005 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript


Article titles

The following 30 pages are in this category.

R