#Civ iv vs civ v professional
#Civ iv vs civ v series

As against the detainor, the hospital relied on its immunity under s6(3). In any event, the local authority's position was that it was not, in law, responsible for its social workerвЂ™s actions. Section 139 prevented a claim against the local authority unless it could be shown that the application for detention had been made at least 'without reasonable care', and then only if the Court granted permission for the claim to be brought.

#Civ iv vs civ v series

Nevertheless, at that point, a series of obstacles remained in the way of the patientвЂ™s damages claim for unlawful detention. habeas corpus proceedings were then brought the following week, and the patient was finally discharged by order of the Court on 11 February 2009.

#Civ iv vs civ v professional

But a week later, on 30 January 2009 a new application for detention under s3 was made by an Approved Mental Health Professional on behalf of the London Borough of Hackney, in the face of the Nearest RelativeвЂ™s continuing objection. After a short period of further detention under s5(2), in relation to which a damages claim was subsequently compromised, the patient was discharged by the hospital on 23 January 2009. However, by 19 January 2009 the Nearest Relative, concerned with the lack of progress, had decided to exercise his right to discharge the Appellant, which took effect on 22 January, 2009. The Appellant was initially detained at Homerton Hospital in November, 2008 under s and then, with his Nearest RelativeвЂ™s approval, under s3 at the beginning of December, 2008. Thanks to Matthew Seligman (Campbell-Taylor Solicitors) for writing a detailed summary.ДЇor more details of the facts, see 'Related Judgments' below. Thanks to Alex Ruck Keene (39 Essex Chambers) for providing the judgment. M v East London NHS Foundation Trust CO/1065/2009 - habeas corpus.TTM v LB Hackney EWHC 1349 (Admin) - judicial review.TTM v LB Hackney EWCA Civ 4 - Court of Appeal (1) Where a local authority makes an unlawful application to a hospital for the detention of a patient under the MHA, it can be held liable in damages for false imprisonment when its unlawful act directly causes the detention (2) although the hospital may act lawfully in detaining such a patient under s6(3) (if the application appeared to be duly made) that does not prevent the detention being held to be unlawful from the outset as against the local authority (3) an application for detention that is made contrary to s11(4) (in the face of the Nearest Relative's objection) is in breach of Article 5(1) (4) Article 5(5) entitles a person detained in breach of Article 5(1) to compensation, and s139(1) (no liability unless bad faith or lack of reasonable care) can be read down so as to allow such a claim to proceed (5) the word 'practicable' in s12(2) (requiring a recommendation from a doctor with previous acquaintance of the patient if practicable) should be broadly construed (6) (obiter) a breach of s12(2) does not go to jurisdiction, but is one made in the exercise of that jurisdiction, and as such is less likely to make detention unlawful (7) on the facts, the local authority was liable in false imprisonment and breach of Article 5 because of the s11(4) breach, and permission was granted under s139(2) for a compensation claim to be pursued, but there was no s12(2) breach because it had been reasonable to obtain two independent opinions from doctors not acquainted with the patient, given the divergence of views between the treating doctors who were.