Information for "Sammut v Next Steps Mental Healthcare Ltd (2024) EWHC 2265 (KB)"
Basic information
| Display title | Sammut v Next Steps Mental Healthcare Ltd [2024] EWHC 2265 (KB) |
| Default sort key | Sammut v Next Steps Mental Healthcare Ltd (2024) EWHC 2265 (KB) |
| Page length (in bytes) | 1,649 |
| Page ID | 15664 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
| Counted as a content page | Yes |
| Page image |  |
Page protection
| Edit | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Move | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
Edit history
| Page creator | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of page creation | 13:03, 8 September 2024 |
| Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 11:33, 6 December 2024 |
| Total number of edits | 3 |
| Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 0 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
Page properties
SEO properties
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | The patient died while in a nursing care home operated by the first defendant. The claimant sought damages for clinical negligence and false imprisonment, and under s7 HRA 1998. The High Court struck out the HRA claim (and alternatively would have granted the first defendant summary judgment) as the first defendant was not a public authority or exercising a public function. The House of Lords decision in YL, that a private care home was not performing functions of a public nature had been overidden by Parliament in certain circumstances (by s145 Health and Social Care Act 2008 and now s73 Care Act 2014) but those circumstances did not apply in this case: the "absence of any special statutory power" (since this patient had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty without DOLS authorisation) was an "important factor" in that decision! The Article 2 claim would have been struck out in any event as the required "very exceptional circumstances" required before the State could become responsible for the acts and omissions of health care providers were not present. |