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 summaryDate added to siteCategories
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." 2017-11-082017 cases, After-care, No summary, Transcript
R (CXF) v Central Bedfordshire Council [2017] EWHC 2311 (Admin), [2017] MHLO 30 — "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 ..→2017-09-202017 cases, After-care, 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 ..→2016-11-112016 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?" 2016-10-122016 cases, After-care, No summary, Transcript
R (Worcestershire CC) v Essex CC [2014] EWHC 3557 (Admin), [2014] MHLO 104 — In 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 ..→2014-11-032014 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript
R (Wiltshire Council) v Hertfordshire CC [2014] EWCA Civ 712, [2014] MHLO 103 — The 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. 2014-11-032014 cases, After-care, Brief summary, ICLR summary, Transcript
R (Afework) v LB Camden [2013] EWHC 1637 (Admin), [2013] MHLO 51 — The 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'). 2013-07-042013 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.] 2012-12-202012 cases, After-care, Missing from Bailii, 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 ..→2012-11-242012 cases, After-care, Detailed summary, Transcript
R (Baisden) v Leicester City Council [2011] EWHC 3219 (Admin) — Section 117 and accommodation. [Summary required.] 2011-12-082011 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.] 2011-09-272011 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. 2011-02-172011 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 ..→2010-06-182010 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.] 2010-03-152010 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. 2009-12-232009 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. 2009-04-111999 cases, After-care, Brief summary, MHLR 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. 2009-04-112002 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. 2009-01-222004 cases, After-care, No summary, Transcript
R (W) v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] EWCA Civ 378 — After-care. 2008-09-132004 cases, After-care, No summary, Transcript
R (W) v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] EWHC 192 (Admin) — After-care. 2008-09-132003 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. 2008-09-132006 cases, After-care, No summary, Transcript
Kolanis v UK 517/02 [2005] ECHR 411 — Conditional discharge/Article 5. 2008-09-122005 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.] 2008-09-121999 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Discharge conditions, MHLR summary, 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.] 2008-09-121999 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Discharge conditions, MHLR summary, 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. 2008-02-222007 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. 2008-02-222006 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. 2006-04-132005 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript

Article titles

The following 27 pages are in this category.