Clunis v Camden & Islington Health Authority [1997] EWCA Civ 2918 (5th December, 1997)

Clunis v Camden & Islington Health Authority [1997] EWCA Civ 2918 (5th December, 1997)

The plaintiff's claim is barred by public policy because it arises from his own serious criminal act (manslaughter), for which he is presumed to have known the nature and wrongfulness of his conduct. Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 does not create a private law duty of care actionable in damages, nor is it fair, just, or reasonable to impose such a duty at common law in these circumstances.

Citation
[1997] EWCA Civ 2918
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Christopher Clunis (by his next friend Christopher Prince); Defendant/appellant: Camden & Islington Health Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court (civil) / Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out Claim
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claim struck out
Legal Topics
Ex Turpi Causa (illegality), Duty of Care, Statutory Duties Under Mental Health Act 1983, Public Policy in Tort Claims
Tort Law Mental Health Law Administrative Law Ex Turpi Causa (illegality) Duty of Care Statutory Duties Under Mental Health Act 1983 Public Policy in Tort Claims

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Clunis (by his next friend Christopher Prince)

Plaintiff/respondent

Camden & Islington Health Authority

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court (civil) / Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio bar a tort claim where the claimant's loss arises from his own criminal act?
  2. 2 Does section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 create a private law duty of care actionable in damages?
  3. 3 Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a common law duty of care on a health authority for aftercare failures post-discharge?

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's claim is barred by public policy because it arises from his own serious criminal act (manslaughter), for which he is presumed to have known the nature and wrongfulness of his conduct. Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 does not create a private law duty of care actionable in damages, nor is it fair, just, or reasonable to impose such a duty at common law in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claim struck out

Orders

  • Order below set aside
  • Costs below to the defendants, not to be enforced without leave