L v London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham & Ors

L v London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham & Ors

The claims are struck out as they have no reasonable prospect of success, are protected by qualified privilege, and no sufficient allegations of malice are made. Further, the proceedings are a nullity as leave of the High Court under section 139 of the Mental Health Act 1983 was not obtained. The threshold for an extended civil restraint order is not met as the claimant's conduct does not amount to persistence.

Parties
Claimant: L; Defendants: London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham & Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Strike Out and for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claims struck out; civil restraint order refused; claimant's applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Malice, Civil Restraint Orders, Limitation Periods, Human Rights
Defamation Mental Health Law Civil Procedure Qualified Privilege Malice Civil Restraint Orders Limitation Periods Human Rights

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 / Application to Strike Out and for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims disclose reasonable grounds for bringing the claim
  2. 2 Whether the claims have a real prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether leave of the High Court was required under section 139 of the Mental Health Act 1983

Ratio Decidendi

The claims are struck out as they have no reasonable prospect of success, are protected by qualified privilege, and no sufficient allegations of malice are made. Further, the proceedings are a nullity as leave of the High Court under section 139 of the Mental Health Act 1983 was not obtained. The threshold for an extended civil restraint order is not met as the claimant's conduct does not amount to persistence.

Court Disposition

Claims struck out; civil restraint order refused; claimant's applications dismissed

Orders

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