Click the case name for better results:

K v Central and North West London Mental Health NHS Trust and Another: QBD 30 May 2008

The claimant appealed against an order striking out his claim in negligence. He had leaped from a window in a suicide attempt. The accommodation was provided by the defendant whilst caring for him under the 1983 Act. Held: The case should be allowed to go ahead. Though the common law tort of negligence is still … Continue reading K v Central and North West London Mental Health NHS Trust and Another: QBD 30 May 2008

Worcestershire County Council -v- Secretary of State for Health and Social Care: CA 22 Dec 2021

dispute about which of two local authorities should pay for care services, in this case after-care services pursuant to s.117(3) of the Mental Health Act 1983 Lord Justice Coulson, Lady Justice Carr, And, Lord Justice William Davis [2021] EWCA Civ 1957 Bailii, Judiciary England and Wales Health, Local Government Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.670716

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Mental Health Review Tribunal for Mersey Regional Health Authority: Admn 1986

the interpretation of section 73(2) (and section 42(2)) may depend, in part at least, on what is meant by ‘discharge’. Held: Mann J said that it meant ‘discharge from hospital’, so that a condition could not be imposed that the patient reside in another hospital, even if not under conditions of detention. Mann J [1986] … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Department v Mental Health Review Tribunal for Mersey Regional Health Authority: Admn 1986

Clunis (By his Next Friend Prince) v Camden and Islington Health Authority: CA 5 Dec 1997

The plaintiff had killed someone and, as a result, been convicted of manslaughter and ordered to be detained in a secure hospital when subject to after-care under section 117 of the 1983 Act. He sought damages from the health authority on the basis that he would not have killed anyone but for negligence on the … Continue reading Clunis (By his Next Friend Prince) v Camden and Islington Health Authority: CA 5 Dec 1997

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

Afework, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Camden: Admn 13 Jun 2013

Judgment on the claimant’s application for permission to apply for judicial review as to whether the defendant local authority is duty bound by virtue of the terms of section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983, to provide the claimant, in his particular circumstances, with accommodation free-of-charge. Mostyn J [2013] EWHC 1637 (Admin) Bailii Mental … Continue reading Afework, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Camden: Admn 13 Jun 2013

Stojak, Regina (on The Application of) v Sheffield City Council: Admn 22 Dec 2009

The deceased had been detained as a mental patient and supported after her release, by her family financially. Her representatives now said that the respondent had failed in its obligation to provide support for no charge. The authority said that the case brought by way of judicial review was brought out of time. Held: The … Continue reading Stojak, Regina (on The Application of) v Sheffield City Council: Admn 22 Dec 2009

Richards v Worcestershire County Council and Another: ChD 28 Jul 2016

Application for claim to be struck out. Newey J [2016] EWHC 1954 (Ch) Bailii Mental Health Act 1983 2 25A 117 England and Wales Citing: Cited – Mwanza, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Greenwich and Another Admn 15-Jun-2010 The claimant had been discharged from inpatient treatment under the 1983 Act, and … Continue reading Richards v Worcestershire County Council and Another: ChD 28 Jul 2016

AK, (A Child), Regina (on The Application of) v The London Borough of Islington and Another: Admn 16 Feb 2021

Claim by AK against the London Borough of Islington (Children Services Department) and the North Central London Clinical Commissioning Group alleging that the defendants failed to adequately assess and plan for her needs following her discharge from hospital pursuant to s.117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 His Honour Judge Lickley QC Sitting as a … Continue reading AK, (A Child), Regina (on The Application of) v The London Borough of Islington and Another: Admn 16 Feb 2021

Gray v Thames Trains and Others: HL 17 Jun 2009

The claimant suffered severe psychiatric injured in a rail crash caused by the defendant’s negligence. Under this condition of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, the claimant had gone on to kill another person, and he had been detained under section 41. He now sought damages for his loss of earnings through detention in prison and mental hospital. … Continue reading Gray v Thames Trains and Others: HL 17 Jun 2009

Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service: HL 22 Nov 1984

Exercise of Prerogative Power is Reviewable The House considered an executive decision made pursuant to powers conferred by a prerogative order. The Minister had ordered employees at GCHQ not to be members of trades unions. Held: The exercise of a prerogative power of a public nature may be, subject to constraints of national security and … Continue reading Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service: HL 22 Nov 1984

Regina v Manchester City Council, ex parte Stennett etc: HL 25 Jul 2002

The applicants were former mental patients who had been admitted to hospital compulsorily under section 3. On their release they were to be given support under section 117. The authorities sought to charge for these services, and appealed a decision that the services should be free. Held: Section 117 imposed a clear and free standing … Continue reading Regina v Manchester City Council, ex parte Stennett etc: HL 25 Jul 2002

RJM, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: HL 22 Oct 2008

The 1987 Regulations provided additional benefits for disabled persons, but excluded from benefit those who had nowhere to sleep. The claimant said this was irrational. He had been receiving the disability premium to his benefits, but this was cancelled when he lost his home. Held: The appeal was dismissed. The disabilty premium, as part of … Continue reading RJM, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: HL 22 Oct 2008