M, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham & Anor [2010] EWHC 562 (Admin) (03 March 2010)

M, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham & Anor [2010] EWHC 562 (Admin) (03 March 2010)

Responsibility for after-care under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 falls on the local authority for the area in which the patient was actually resident at the time of compulsory detention, not on the authority deemed responsible under section 24(5) of the National Assistance Act 1948. The deeming provision does not apply to section 117, and no legitimate expectation was established on the evidence.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 562 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: M (JM); Defendant (1st): London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham; Defendant (2nd): London Borough of Sutton; Claimant (second Case): Hertfordshire County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim against Hammersmith and Fulham dismissed; Sutton found responsible for after-care costs for JM; Hammersmith and Fulham succeeded on the issue of principle against Hertfordshire.
Legal Topics
Ordinary Residence, Section 117 Mental Health Act 1983, Section 21 National Assistance Act 1948, Local Authority Responsibility, After Care Services, Legitimate Expectation
Administrative Law Mental Health Law Social Care Law Ordinary Residence Section 117 Mental Health Act 1983 Section 21 National Assistance Act 1948 Local Authority Responsibility After Care Services +1 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M (JM)

Claimant

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

Defendant (1st)

London Borough of Sutton

Defendant (2nd)

Hertfordshire County Council

Claimant (second Case)

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Which local authority is responsible for after-care accommodation costs under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 for a patient discharged from compulsory detention?
  2. 2 Does the deeming provision in section 24(5) of the National Assistance Act 1948 apply to section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983?
  3. 3 Is there a legitimate expectation arising from inter-authority agreements or guidance that affects responsibility?

Ratio Decidendi

Responsibility for after-care under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 falls on the local authority for the area in which the patient was actually resident at the time of compulsory detention, not on the authority deemed responsible under section 24(5) of the National Assistance Act 1948. The deeming provision does not apply to section 117, and no legitimate expectation was established on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Claim against Hammersmith and Fulham dismissed; Sutton found responsible for after-care costs for JM; Hammersmith and Fulham succeeded on the issue of principle against Hertfordshire.

Orders

  • Sutton to pay Hammersmith and Fulham's costs on the standard basis.
  • Hertfordshire to pay Hammersmith and Fulham's costs after the date of concession on the standard basis.