Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
View all articles
Authors

DETENTION: Coombs v Dorset NHS Primary Care Trust and Nottingham Healthcare NHS Trust [2012] EWHC 521 (QB)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:06 PM
Slug : detention-coombs-v-dorset-nhs-primary-care-trust-and-nottingham-healthcare-nhs-trust-2012-ewhc-521-qb
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 8, 2013, 03:07 AM
Article ID : 102469

(Queen's Bench Division, His Honour Judge Platts, sitting as a High Court judge, 17 February 2012)

The 55-year-old man had a long history of mental illness and was detained under s 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and taken to a clinic in Dorset where he was admitted under s 2. His continued detention was subsequently authorised under s 3.

While in the clinic he suffered a serious head injury as a result of the admitted negligence of the defendants. He remained detained pursuant to s 3 at a low-secure but locked unit. He now claimed that he did not require that level of security and he sought damages for the ongoing cost of future care and treatment at whichever institution it was in his best interests to attend.

The defendant trusts did not accept that the man should move from the current placement which was provided by the NHS and funded by the primary care trust. They raised an objection in principle that it was not open to a person detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 to pay for his or her own care and treatment.

The judge found, as a preliminary issue, that a person detained under a provision of the Mental Health Act 1983 was not as a matter of public policy, or otherwise, prevented from paying for his or her own treatment or care.

It was not the case that a patient, by paying for his or her own treatment or care, gained the ability or right to choose the treatment. That would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme. The right to make a decision was and remained with the detaining authority by virtue of the statutory provisions so long as the patient remained detained. There was, however, no difficulty with the patient providing money to facilitate a placement or treatment which was deemed appropriate by the detaining authority.

There was a prospect of a patient who funded his or her own placement being more likely to challenge the nature of the care and treatment and expectations of a positive outcome may be higher but those expectations had to be managed carefully. So long as the patient remained subject to detention then he or she had to accept the treatment and placements as directed by the detaining authority. There was no reason why those practical difficulties should deprive the patient of the right to choose to pay if he or she wished.

 

Categories :
  • Court of Protection
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from