Right Support Management Ltd v London Borough of Hillingdon [2025] EWHC 1680 (KB) (03 July 2025)

Right Support Management Ltd v London Borough of Hillingdon [2025] EWHC 1680 (KB) (03 July 2025)

The High Court held that the County Court judge erred in refusing permission to amend the Particulars of Claim to plead a claim under s.117 Mental Health Act 1983 for invoices from August 2018 onwards, as these were not statute barred and arose from substantially the same facts as the original claims. The judge was wrong to treat the amendment as wholly statute barred and to find that the new claim did not arise from substantially the same facts. The refusal of relief from sanctions under CPR r.3.14 was upheld, as the breach was serious, the explanation was inadequate, and the lack of promptness was a critical factor.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1680 (KB)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Right Support Management Limited; Respondent/defendant: The London Borough of Hillingdon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / High Court (king's Bench Division) Judgment on Appeal From County Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Relief From Sanctions, Limitation Periods, Statutory Duties Under Mental Health Act 1983, Aftercare Services, Unjust Enrichment, Costs Management
Civil Procedure Public Law Mental Health Law Contract Law Amendment of Pleadings Relief From Sanctions Limitation Periods Statutory Duties Under Mental Health Act 1983 +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 40 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Right Support Management Limited

Appellant/claimant

The London Borough of Hillingdon

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / High Court (king's Bench Division) Judgment on Appeal From County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the County Court judge erred in refusing permission to amend the Particulars of Claim to plead a claim under s.117 Mental Health Act 1983
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in refusing relief from sanctions under CPR r.3.14 for late filing of costs budget

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that the County Court judge erred in refusing permission to amend the Particulars of Claim to plead a claim under s.117 Mental Health Act 1983 for invoices from August 2018 onwards, as these were not statute barred and arose from substantially the same facts as the original claims. The judge was wrong to treat the amendment as wholly statute barred and to find that the new claim did not arise from substantially the same facts. The refusal of relief from sanctions under CPR r.3.14 was upheld, as the breach was serious, the explanation was inadequate, and the lack of promptness was a critical factor.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • Permission to amend Particulars of Claim to plead s.117 Mental Health Act 1983 claim for invoices from August 2018 onwards granted
  • Refusal of relief from sanctions under CPR r.3.14 for late costs budget filing upheld