L v London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham & Ors [2006] EWHC 1976 (QB) (27 April 2006)

L v London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham & Ors [2006] EWHC 1976 (QB) (27 April 2006)

The claims were struck out because they had no reasonable prospect of success, were subject to qualified privilege, lacked any substantiated allegation of malice, and were a nullity for want of leave under section 139 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The threshold for a civil restraint order was not met as the claimant's conduct was not persistent.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 1976 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: L; Defendants: London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham & Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil (defamation, Tort, Human Rights) / Application to Strike Out/summary Judgment and Civil Restraint Order
Outcome
Claims struck out; application for civil restraint order dismissed; claimant's applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Malice, Section 139 Mental Health Act 1983, Limitation Periods, Civil Restraint Orders, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Defamation Mental Health Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Qualified Privilege Malice Section 139 Mental Health Act 1983 Limitation Periods +3 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L

Claimant

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham & Others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil (defamation, Tort, Human Rights) / Application to Strike Out/summary Judgment and Civil Restraint Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims in defamation and conspiracy should be struck out for disclosing no reasonable grounds or lacking real prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether leave of the High Court was required under section 139 of the Mental Health Act 1983
  3. 3 Whether the claims were time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980

Ratio Decidendi

The claims were struck out because they had no reasonable prospect of success, were subject to qualified privilege, lacked any substantiated allegation of malice, and were a nullity for want of leave under section 139 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The threshold for a civil restraint order was not met as the claimant's conduct was not persistent.

Court Disposition

Claims struck out; application for civil restraint order dismissed; claimant's applications dismissed.

Orders

  • All six claims struck out as a nullity for want of leave under section 139 Mental Health Act 1983 and for having no reasonable prospect of success.
  • Application for extended civil restraint order dismissed.