TW v London Borough of Enfield and Another: QBD 8 May 2013

The claimant sought damages after being detained under the 1983 Act, and a declaration that the section used was incompatible with her human rights.
Held: The test for allowing proceedings was set at a low level, and even if section 139 does have any effect on the Applicant’s rights under Article 6 read together with Article 14, that effect was plainly justified, and ‘the protection of those responsible for the care of mental patients from being harassed by litigation has been accepted as a legitimate objective’ was a conclusive answer to the Article 14 claim.
As to the allegation of failing to cosult under section 11, a consultation with TW’s father was expected in the profesional judgment of the social worker in this case only to have been a likely further source of distress to TW, and a consultation was not therefore practicable.

Bean J
[2013] EWHC 1180 (QB)
Mental Health Act 1983 3 11, European Convention on Human Rights 6 14
England and Wales
CitedKjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v Denmark ECHR 7-Dec-1976
The court discussed the meaning of ‘other status’ under article 14, saying: ‘Article 14 prohibits, within the ambit of the rights and freedoms guaranteed, discriminatory treatment having as its basis or reason a personal characteristic (‘status’) by . .
CitedWinch v Jones CA 1986
The court asked as to the criteria which should be applied when considering an application by a mental patient for leave to bring proceedings under section 139: ‘section 139 protects the defendant unless and until the applicant obtains leave. This . .
CitedS, Regina (on Application of) v South Yorkshire Police; Regina v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police ex parte Marper HL 22-Jul-2004
Police Retention of Suspects DNA and Fingerprints
The claimants complained that their fingerprints and DNA records taken on arrest had been retained after discharge before trial, saying the retention of the samples infringed their right to private life.
Held: The parts of DNA used for testing . .
CitedRJM, 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 . .
CitedSeal v United Kingdom ECHR 7-Dec-2010
The court considered a procedural filter which prevented the bringing of a claim relating to the exercise of powers under the 1983 Act without the leave of the court.
Held: ‘The Court notes at the outset that the Applicant pursued his . .
CitedSeal v Chief Constable of South Wales Police HL 4-Jul-2007
The claimant had sought to bring proceedings against the respondent, but as a mental patient subject to the 1983 Act, had been obliged by the section first to obtain consent. The parties disputed whether the failure was a procedural or substantial . .
CitedIn Re D (Mental Patient: Habeas Corpus) Admn 2000
. .
CitedTTM v London Borough of Hackney and Others CA 14-Jan-2011
The claimant had been found to have been wrongfully detained under section 3. He appealed against rejection of his claim for judicial review and for damages. The court found that his detention was lawful until declared otherwise. He argued that the . .
CitedWC, Regina (On the Application of) v South London and Maudsley NHS Trust and Another Admn 25-Oct-2001
The claimant challenged his detention under section 3 of the 1983. He suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. He said that the social worker had consulted his wife and not, as he said was correct, his mother.
Held: . .
CitedGD v Hospital Managers of the Edgware Community Hospital and Another Admn 27-Jun-2008
The claimant sought a writ of habeas corpus, by way of a challenge to his detention under section 3 of the 1983 Act, saying that it had been unlawful because the social workers had failed to consult his father.
Held: Burnett J said: ‘The duty . .
CitedE, Regina (on the Application of) v Bristol City Council Admn 13-Jan-2005
The patient did not wish her nearest relative, namely her sister, to be involved with her case and there was evidence that she would be so distressed by the sister being consulted that it could harm her health. The sister likewise did not wish to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Human Rights

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.509119