TTM v London Borough of Hackney & Ors [2010] EWHC 1349 (Admin) (11 June 2010)

TTM v London Borough of Hackney & Ors [2010] EWHC 1349 (Admin) (11 June 2010)

The claimant's detention under section 3 was unlawful due to the nearest relative's objection not being properly withdrawn, but there was no negligence or bad faith by the AMHP or hospital managers. The hospital was entitled to rely on the application as appearing duly made, and the use of two independent doctors was reasonable under section 12(2). In domestic law, absent fault, detention is lawful until a court declares otherwise, so no damages are payable under Article 5(5) ECHR, and there is no incompatibility in sections 139(1) or 6(3) of the Act.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1349 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: TTM (By his Litigation Friend TM); First Defendant: London Borough of Hackney; Second Defendant: East London NHS Foundation Trust; Interested Party: Secretary of State for Health
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Habeas Corpus / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Unlawful Detention, Section 3 Mental Health Act 1983, Section 11(4) Mental Health Act 1983, Section 12(2) Mental Health Act 1983, Section 139 Mental Health Act 1983, Section 6(3) Mental Health Act 1983, Article 5 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Compensation for Unlawful Detention, Procedural Safeguards for Compulsory Admission
Mental Health Law Administrative Law Human Rights Unlawful Detention Section 3 Mental Health Act 1983 Section 11(4) Mental Health Act 1983 Section 12(2) Mental Health Act 1983 Section 139 Mental Health Act 1983 +5 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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TTM (By his Litigation Friend TM)

Claimant

London Borough of Hackney

First Defendant

East London NHS Foundation Trust

Second Defendant

Secretary of State for Health

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Habeas Corpus / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's admission to hospital under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 was unlawful due to objection by the nearest relative
  2. 2 Whether there was a breach of section 12(2) of the Act regarding previous acquaintance of medical practitioners
  3. 3 Whether the hospital managers and AMHP acted with reasonable care or negligence

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's detention under section 3 was unlawful due to the nearest relative's objection not being properly withdrawn, but there was no negligence or bad faith by the AMHP or hospital managers. The hospital was entitled to rely on the application as appearing duly made, and the use of two independent doctors was reasonable under section 12(2). In domestic law, absent fault, detention is lawful until a court declares otherwise, so no damages are payable under Article 5(5) ECHR, and there is no incompatibility in sections 139(1) or 6(3) of the Act.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed