The applicants ran a Registered Nursing Home. The health authority, having concerns about its elderly residents, brought an ex parte application under section 30 of the Registered Homes Act 1984 for an order cancelling the Certificate of Registration. The application was successful and the applicants’ Certificate of Registration was cancelled with immediate effect. The applicants appeal to the Registered Homes Tribunal was not heard for four months, by which time irrevocable damage had been done to the applicants’ business. They fell behind with the bank having no income and the bank foreclosed on both the nursing home and on their actual home. Both properties were sold at forced sale value. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed that the section 30 order should cease to have effect.
The applicants brought a civil claim for damages against the local health authority. The High Court held that the local health authority owed the applicants a duty of care as there was a sufficient degree of proximity between the parties; it was plainly foreseeable that if the registration was cancelled and the home closed there would be immediate loss of income and a diminution in the value of the premises; and that it would be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care.
The Court of Appeal allowed the local authority’s appeal against this decision, finding that the authority did not owe a duty of care to the applicants. The Court of Appeal relied heavily on the opinion of the House of Lords in D v East Berkshire Community NHS Trust [2005] 2 AC 373, which held that a local authority investigating possible child abuse did not owe a duty of care to the parents of the children under investigation.
The applicants appealed to the House of Lords, which unanimously held that the local authority did not owe a duty of care when applying for an ex parte order in a case such as the present first, because the purpose of the statutory power was to protect the interests of the residents of a nursing home, which were potentially in conflict with the interests of the proprietors; secondly, because no duty of care is generally owed to an opposing party in litigation and the particular circumstances of the present case were not sufficient to make it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care.
The applicants complained that the cancellation of the Certificate of Registration violated their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention. They further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that no effective remedy was available from the domestic courts for the breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Finally, the applicants complained that the ex parte nature of the application for a section 30 Order violated their rights under Article 6 of the Convention.
[2010] ECHR 411
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Citing:
See Also – Jain and another v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Sep-2009
. .
See Also – Jain and Another v Trent Strategic Health Authority QBD 4-Dec-2006
. .
At CA – Jain and Another v Trent Strategic Health Authority CA 22-Nov-2007
The claimant argued that the defendant owed him a duty of care as proprietor of a registered nursing home in cancelling the registration of the home under the 1984 Act. The authority appealed a finding that it owed such a duty.
Held: The . .
At HL – Trent Strategic Health Authority v Jain and Another HL 21-Jan-2009
The claimants’ nursing home business had been effectively destroyed by the actions of the Authority which had applied to revoke their licence without them being given notice and opportunity to reply. They succeeded on appeal, but the business was by . .
See Also – Jain and another v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Sep-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567937
