K v Central & North West London Mental Health NHS Trust & Anor [2008] EWHC 1217 (QB) (30 May 2008)

K v Central & North West London Mental Health NHS Trust & Anor [2008] EWHC 1217 (QB) (30 May 2008)

The pleaded claim in negligence is not certain to fail and is not precluded by Clunis on its facts or as a matter of law, given the developing jurisprudence and the specific proximity and reliance alleged. The claim should proceed to trial for factual determination. The Article 2 ECHR claim is bound to fail for lack of gross negligence and is struck out, but the Article 3 and 8 claims are arguable and should proceed.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 1217
Parties
Claimant: A K; 1st Respondent: Central and North West London Mental Health NHS Trust; 2nd Respondent: The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Strike Out and Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Statutory Duties, Human Rights Act 1998, Mental Health Law, Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment
Tort Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Negligence Duty of Care Statutory Duties Human Rights Act 1998 Mental Health Law +2 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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A K

Claimant

Central and North West London Mental Health NHS Trust

1st Respondent

The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Strike Out and Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a common law duty of care exists in the context of section 117 Mental Health Act 1983 aftercare services
  2. 2 Whether the claim in negligence is precluded by Clunis v. Camden and Islington Area Health Authority
  3. 3 Whether the pleaded facts establish sufficient proximity and reliance to found a duty of care

Ratio Decidendi

The pleaded claim in negligence is not certain to fail and is not precluded by Clunis on its facts or as a matter of law, given the developing jurisprudence and the specific proximity and reliance alleged. The claim should proceed to trial for factual determination. The Article 2 ECHR claim is bound to fail for lack of gross negligence and is struck out, but the Article 3 and 8 claims are arguable and should proceed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Strike-out and summary judgment set aside as regards the negligence claim and Article 3 and 8 ECHR claims; these claims to proceed to trial.
  • Article 2 ECHR claim struck out as bound to fail.