Sign up for MHLO on the Subscriptions page: you can sign up for free email updates, the email discussion list, the online forum and the CPD scheme (which provides 12 hours for £60 and is suitable for lawyers and non-lawyers).

Online forum | Latest topic on forum: Sec 72 (1) b ii MHA

DD v Durham County Council [2013] EWCA Civ 96, [2013] MHLO 31

DD wished to bring proceedings against local authorities arguing that (a) the two assessing AMHPs owed a duty to him (a legal responsibility not only for assessing whether the patient should be detained, but also for the suitability of the hospital at which the patient was to be detained and the regime under which he would be held); (b) that by making the application for admission, each was in breach of duty; and (c) that the county council was responsible vicariously for that breach of duty. (1) The Court of Appeal (reversing the High Court decision in this respect) decided that the argument was sufficient for leave under s139 to bring proceedings to be granted. (2) DD should not have been made responsible for the costs of Middlesbrough City Council.

Related judgments

DD v Durham County Council [2013] EWCA Civ 96, [2013] MHLO 31

Appeal status/thanks

The claim against Durham was ultimately discontinued.

Thanks to Chris Buttler (Matrix Chambers) for providing appeal status information (email 4/4/16).

External link

BAILII