The High Court has granted A.M. leave to bring civil proceedings against three defendants over his detention at the Central Mental Hospital from 18 February to 24 April 2007, a period previously found to be unlawful. The ruling allows the proposed claims to proceed; it does not decide liability or damages.
A.M. seeks damages for false imprisonment, trespass to the person, breach of statutory duty, breach of constitutional rights and negligence. The defendants opposed leave on the basis that there were no reasonable grounds to contend they had acted without reasonable care. They did not argue that the proceedings were frivolous or vexatious, and A.M. did not allege bad faith.
The dispute followed a series of forms sent to the Mental Health Commission in 2006 recording different expiry dates for A.M.’s detention order. The first was rejected because it came from a clinical director at a different hospital. A replacement gave an expiry date that the judgment described as obviously mistaken; a third form gave another date. A tribunal reviewed the detention in February 2007 and affirmed a renewal order. But in a separate constitutional inquiry, the High Court later held that the August 2006 renewal ran from the date written on it, meaning the February 2007 extension and its affirmation were invalid.
In the present leave application, Justice Iseult O’Malley said it was arguable that the defendants had a duty to take care when reporting the detention’s expiry date and that acting on a mistaken view of the law could amount to a lack of reasonable care. The errors involving the three forms provided a sufficient factual basis for that argument at this stage.
The judge also found it was arguable that the Commission should have made inquiries after receiving forms with differing dates, including two she said were clearly wrong on their face. Whether the Commission had a duty to check the information, and whether it bore responsibility connected with the tribunal process, required fuller examination.
The court granted leave to issue proceedings against all three defendants. Justice O’Malley stressed that her views were not binding on the parties or a trial judge, and that discovery and oral evidence could raise other considerations. The court did not determine the separate claim concerning A.M.’s transfer from Our Lady’s Hospital in Navan to the Central Mental Hospital. No argument was made on that claim at the hearing; the judge said it appeared potentially statute barred and would hear the parties on whether that aspect could be refused while leave was granted on the other claims.