TTM v London Borough of Hackney & Ors

TTM v London Borough of Hackney & Ors

The claimant's admission under section 3 was unlawful due to the nearest relative's objection not being properly withdrawn, but the AMHP acted honestly and without negligence. The hospital managers were entitled to rely on the application as appearing duly made. There was no breach of section 12(2) as it was reasonable to use two independent doctors. No negligence or bad faith was established, so no damages or leave to pursue a civil claim were warranted. The detention was not unlawful in domestic law until declared so by the court, so no compensation is due under Article 5(5) ECHR, and the statutory provisions are not incompatible with the ECHR.

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, Article 5 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Damages for Unlawful Detention, Hospital Managers' Duties, Approved Mental Health Professional (amhp) Liability
Mental Health Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law 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 7 Authorities cited 13 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 medical recommendations
  3. 3 Whether the hospital managers and AMHP acted with reasonable care or were negligent

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's admission under section 3 was unlawful due to the nearest relative's objection not being properly withdrawn, but the AMHP acted honestly and without negligence. The hospital managers were entitled to rely on the application as appearing duly made. There was no breach of section 12(2) as it was reasonable to use two independent doctors. No negligence or bad faith was established, so no damages or leave to pursue a civil claim were warranted. The detention was not unlawful in domestic law until declared so by the court, so no compensation is due under Article 5(5) ECHR, and the statutory provisions are not incompatible with the ECHR.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed