K v Central & North West London Mental Health NHS Trust & Anor

K v Central & North West London Mental Health NHS Trust & Anor

The pleaded claim in negligence should not have been struck out as it is not certain to fail; the decision in Clunis does not conclusively preclude a common law duty of care in all section 117 Mental Health Act cases, especially where a close relationship of proximity is alleged. The Article 2 ECHR claim is bound to fail and is struck out, but the Article 3 and Article 8 claims are arguable and should proceed to trial.

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 / Appeal Against Order Striking Out Claim and Dismissing Action at Interlocutory Stage
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Statutory Duties, Human Rights Act 1998, Mental Health Act 1983, Article 2 ECHR, Article 3 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment
Tort Law Human Rights Law Mental Health Law Administrative Law Negligence Duty of Care Statutory Duties Human Rights Act 1998 +6 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 27 Party arguments 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 / Appeal Against Order Striking Out Claim and Dismissing Action at Interlocutory Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pleaded claim in negligence based on breach of a common law duty of care arising from statutory obligations under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action or as having no real prospect of success.
  2. 2 Whether the Human Rights Act claims under Articles 2, 3, and 8 ECHR should be struck out.
  3. 3 Whether the decision in Clunis v. Camden and Islington Area Health Authority precludes a common law duty of care in these circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The pleaded claim in negligence should not have been struck out as it is not certain to fail; the decision in Clunis does not conclusively preclude a common law duty of care in all section 117 Mental Health Act cases, especially where a close relationship of proximity is alleged. The Article 2 ECHR claim is bound to fail and is struck out, but the Article 3 and Article 8 claims are arguable and should proceed to trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • The strike out and dismissal of the claim in negligence is set aside; the claim in negligence is restored to proceed to trial.
  • The Human Rights Act claims under Articles 3 and 8 ECHR are restored to proceed to trial.