Richards v Worcestershire County Council & Anor

Richards v Worcestershire County Council & Anor

The claim was properly brought as a private law action and not an abuse of process; the exclusivity principle did not bar the claim. The question of whether the defendants’ non-compliance with section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 gives rise to a private law claim for restitution or unjust enrichment involves contested facts and is not suitable for summary determination or strike out.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Kenneth John Richards (by his deputy & litigation friend, Anne Minihane); Defendant/appellant: Worcestershire County Council; Defendant/appellant: South Worcestershire Clinical Commissioning Group
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal to Strike Out Claim (abuse of Process)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Exclusivity Principle, Judicial Review Vs Private Law Claims, Unjust Enrichment, Restitution, Statutory Duties Under Mental Health Act 1983
Public Law Mental Health Law Civil Procedure Exclusivity Principle Judicial Review Vs Private Law Claims Unjust Enrichment Restitution Statutory Duties Under Mental Health Act 1983

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenneth John Richards (by his deputy & litigation friend, Anne Minihane)

Claimant/respondent

Worcestershire County Council

Defendant/appellant

South Worcestershire Clinical Commissioning Group

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal to Strike Out Claim (abuse of Process)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim should be struck out as an abuse of process for not proceeding by judicial review
  2. 2 Whether non-compliance with section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 gives rise to a private law claim for restitution/unjust enrichment

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was properly brought as a private law action and not an abuse of process; the exclusivity principle did not bar the claim. The question of whether the defendants’ non-compliance with section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 gives rise to a private law claim for restitution or unjust enrichment involves contested facts and is not suitable for summary determination or strike out.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; the claim is not struck out and may proceed to trial.