A.M -v- Kennedy & Ors [2013] IEHC 55 (08 February 2013)

A.M -v- Kennedy & Ors [2013] IEHC 55 (08 February 2013)

It is arguable that the intended defendants owed a duty of care in notifying the Commission of the expiry date of the applicant's detention and that a mistaken view of the law resulting in unlawful detention may constitute acting without reasonable care. The respondents have not established that there are no reasonable grounds for the applicant's claim. Leave to issue proceedings is granted.

Citation
[2013] IEHC 55
Parties
Intended Plaintiff: A. M.; Intended First Named Defendant: Harry Kennedy (in his role as Clinical Director of the Central Mental Hospital); Intended Second Named Defendant: The Mental Health Commission; Intended Third Named Defendant: The Health Service Executive
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
08 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Institute Civil Proceedings Under S.73 of the Mental Health Act, 2001 / Application for Leave
Outcome
Leave to issue proceedings granted
Legal Topics
Leave to Institute Proceedings, False Imprisonment, Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Breach of Constitutional Rights, Unlawful Detention
Mental Health Law Constitutional Law Tort Law Leave to Institute Proceedings False Imprisonment Negligence Breach of Statutory Duty Breach of Constitutional Rights +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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. M.

Intended Plaintiff

Harry Kennedy (in his role as Clinical Director of the Central Mental Hospital)

Intended First Named Defendant

The Mental Health Commission

Intended Second Named Defendant

The Health Service Executive

Intended Third Named Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Institute Civil Proceedings Under S.73 of the Mental Health Act, 2001 / Application for Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are reasonable grounds for contending that the intended defendants acted without reasonable care in relation to the applicant's unlawful detention
  2. 2 Whether the Mental Health Commission owed a duty of care regarding the accuracy of detention expiry dates
  3. 3 Whether a bona fide but mistaken view of the law can amount to acting without reasonable care

Ratio Decidendi

It is arguable that the intended defendants owed a duty of care in notifying the Commission of the expiry date of the applicant's detention and that a mistaken view of the law resulting in unlawful detention may constitute acting without reasonable care. The respondents have not established that there are no reasonable grounds for the applicant's claim. Leave to issue proceedings is granted.

Court Disposition

Leave to issue proceedings granted

Orders

  • Leave granted to the applicant to issue proceedings against all three respondents under s.73 of the Mental Health Act, 2001