MHLO Annual Review 2013: Paperback | Kindle

Email updates | Email discussion list | Twitter

Fennell, Letts and Wilson, Mental Health Tribunals (Law Society 2013):
Foreword | Review | Amazon | Law Society bookshop | 20% discount

CPD scheme (12 points for £60)




Coombs v Dorset NHS PCT (2012) EWHC 521 (QB), (2012) MHLO 13

From Mental Health Law Online

Jump to: navigation, search

Whether the claimant, who had sustained a serious head injury while a detained patient, should be permitted to fund his future care. (1) The defendant argued that (a) a detained patient could not choose to pay for his treatment, particularly because the RC chose where and how he was treated; (b) allowing payment would create a contract, contrary to the purpose of the MHA to take care and treatment out of patients’ hands; (c) there was no significant difference compared with prisoners, whose expenses are met by the government under s51 Prison Act 1952; (d) while the statute did not prohibit payment, it would be contrary to public policy to allow a patient to use his own funds. (2) The claimant argued that (a) there was no reason why a detained patient should not be able to pay if he wishes; (b) while the patient could not choose where or how he was treated, he should be able to top-up payments if he preferred a placement for which the funding authority were unwilling to pay; (c) denying the right to pay would breach Article 5. (3) Held: (a) the relationship between care providers and a detained patient was different to that with ordinary patients, as the RC has the right to decide on appropriate placement and treatment, but if the patient could pay for a particular appropriate placement or treatment there was nothing to prevent this; (b) prisoners and detained patients should not be regarded in the same way: with patients there was no punitive element; patients are not detained for finite periods; the purpose and effect of s51 Prison Act 1952 had no application to patients; (c) Article 5 relates to lawfulness of detention, not conditions of detention (which concerned Article 3); (d) public policy considerations amounted to mere repetition of other arguments; (e) a detained patient is not prevented from paying for his own care or treatment. The defendant was granted permission to appeal. [Based on Lawtel summary.]

Contents

Related judgments

Coombs v North Dorset NHS PCT (2013) EWCA Civ 471, (2013) MHLO 35

  • Coombs v Dorset NHS PCT (2012) EWHC 521 (QB), (2012) MHLO 13

Other

Before: HHJ Platts

Judgment: 17/2/12 (ex tempore)

Martin Spencer QC, Tejina Mangat (instructed by Moore Blatch) for the claimant

Ms Scott (instructed by DAC Beachcrofts) for the defendant

Citations

[2012] All ER (D) 42 (Apr), [2012] EWHC 521 (QB), LTL 17/2/2012 EXTEMPORE

External link

BAILII

Transcript