B, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Camden & Ors

B, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Camden & Ors

The application for permission to appeal is refused because the judge's findings that Camden's Section 117 duty arose only after the tribunal's final discharge decision, that there was no actionable delay attributable to Camden, and that damages were not available for any breach, are correct. The case does not provide a suitable vehicle for resolving the broader legal issues raised.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: B; Defendant/respondent: London Borough of Camden & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review/appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (renewed Orally)
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Section 117 Mental Health Act Duties, Delay in Discharge From Detention, Article 5 ECHR (right to Liberty), Article 8 ECHR (right to Private and Family Life), Damages for Breach of Statutory Duty, Judicial Review Remedies
Administrative Law Mental Health Law Human Rights Law Section 117 Mental Health Act Duties Delay in Discharge From Detention Article 5 ECHR (right to Liberty) Article 8 ECHR (right to Private and Family Life) Damages for Breach of Statutory Duty +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B

Claimant/appellant

London Borough of Camden & Ors

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review/appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (renewed Orally)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When does the duty under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 arise?
  2. 2 Does a delay in discharge due to funding or other reasons breach statutory or Convention rights?
  3. 3 Is there a right to damages for breach of Section 117 or Convention rights in this context?

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to appeal is refused because the judge's findings that Camden's Section 117 duty arose only after the tribunal's final discharge decision, that there was no actionable delay attributable to Camden, and that damages were not available for any breach, are correct. The case does not provide a suitable vehicle for resolving the broader legal issues raised.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application refused