The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page.

Page and summary	Date added to site	Categories
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	2012 cases, After-care, No summary, Transcript
R (Sunderland City Council) v South Tyneside Council (2012) EWCA Civ 1232, (2012) MHLO 117 — The 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 ..→	2012-11-24	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	2011 cases, After-care, 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	2011 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript
R (Hertfordshire CC) v LB Hammersmith and Fulham (2011) EWCA Civ 77 — The 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	2011 cases, After-care, Brief 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 ..→	2010-06-18	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	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	2009 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript
R (Watson) v LB Richmond (1999) EWHC Admin 749 — Claimants' 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	1999 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript
R (Stennett) v Manchester City Council (2002) UKHL 34 — S117 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	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	2004 cases, After-care, No summary, Transcript
R (W) v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (2004) EWCA Civ 378 — After-care.	2008-09-13	2004 cases, After-care, No summary, Transcript
R (W) v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (2003) EWHC 192 (Admin) — After-care.	2008-09-13	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	2006 cases, After-care, No summary, Transcript
Kolanis v UK 517/02 (2005) ECHR 411 — Conditional discharge/Article 5.	2008-09-12	2005 cases, After-care, ECHR, No summary, Transcript
R (Hall) v MHRT (1999) EWHC Admin 351 — The 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	1999 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Discharge conditions, Transcript
R (Hall) v MHRT (1999) EWCA Civ 2052 — The 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	1999 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Discharge conditions, Transcript
Decision of the Social Security Commissioner (2007) UKSSCSC CIS 3760 2006 — Refund 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	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	2006 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript
R (B) v Camden London Borough Council (2005) EWHC 1366 (Admin) — Claimant sought damages breach of statutory duty under s117 causing delay after deferred conditional discharge. Claim dismissed.	2006-04-13	2005 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript