View source for Tinsley v Manchester City Council (2017) EWCA Civ 1704

{{Case
|Date=2017/11/01
|NCN=[2017] EWCA Civ 1704
|ICLR=[2017] WLR(D) 733
|Other citations=[2017] MHLR 381, [2018] 2 WLR 973, (2018) 159 BMLR 154, (2017) 20 CCL Rep 455, [2018] QB 767
|Court=Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
|Judges=Etherton, Longmore, Irwin
|Parties=Damien Tinsley, Manchester City Council, South Manchester Clinical Commissioning Group, Local Government Association
|Judicial history first case=Tinsley v Manchester City Council (2016) EWHC 2855 (Admin)
|Sentence=After-care payments and double recovery
|Summary="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."
|Subject=After-care
|News=No
|RSS pubdate=2019/04/20 10:19:54 PM
}}