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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
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