The Court of Appeal has struck out proceedings brought by a person identified as E.C. after ruling that they were instituted without leave required under the Mental Health Act 2001. The court said the failure to obtain leave deprived the High Court of jurisdiction to take any steps in the case.
In a judgment delivered on 6 March 2025, Mr Justice Anthony Collins allowed an appeal by Ireland and the Attorney General and dismissed E.C.’s cross-appeal. Justices Faherty and Pilkington agreed. The court ordered the proceedings struck out and made no order for the costs of the appeal. It said any costs orders previously made should stand discharged.
E.C.’s original claim concerned alleged non-consensual treatment with depot neuroleptic medication and physical restraint at a hospital. The claim sought declarations, an injunction and damages, including on grounds of alleged breaches of the Mental Health Act, constitutional rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. These were claims advanced in the proceedings, not findings made by the Court of Appeal.
The High Court had earlier ruled that leave was required for the claims against the Health Service Executive (HSE) concerning the treatment, but not for a constitutional challenge to section 57(1) of the Act. It later struck out the claim against the HSE and allowed the constitutional action against Ireland and the Attorney General to continue. Ireland and the Attorney General appealed; E.C. cross-appealed the finding that the leave requirement barred the HSE claim.
The Court of Appeal held that the proceedings had to be assessed as they stood when instituted. Because at least part of the claim concerned acts purportedly done under the 2001 Act, leave was required for the proceedings as a whole. The court also concluded that proceedings instituted without leave were a nullity and could not be revived or continued by separating out the constitutional challenge.
The judgment did not decide the merits of the treatment allegations or the constitutional challenge. It said E.C. remained able to bring a stand-alone constitutional challenge, and that the ruling did not prevent pursuing any remedy in damages that may be available against the HSE. The court did not determine whether such a claim would succeed.