The High Court has granted A. L. leave to bring intended proceedings for damages against the Clinical Director of St. Patrick’s Hospital over her alleged unlawful detention as an involuntary patient.
In a judgment delivered on 11 March 2010, Mr Justice Clarke considered an application under section 73 of the Mental Health Act 2001. The Clinical Director opposed leave; the Mental Health Commission consented. The court’s task was limited to deciding whether the statutory grounds for refusing leave had been established. It did not determine the merits of the proposed claim.
The dispute concerns a six-month renewal of A. L.’s detention. There was no complaint about her original admission order or the first, three-month renewal. The judgment records that a copy of the later renewal order was received by fax and logged by the Commission, but the relevant official was not alerted. As a result, no tribunal was convened to review the renewal, as the statutory process required.
The Commission accepted that a case had been made out that it failed to exercise reasonable care. A. L. argued that the Clinical Director or senior staff at the hospital should have noticed the absence of the expected tribunal examination, interviews, access to medical records or notice of a tribunal decision. Her case was that this lack of contact should have alerted them to a possible problem with the continued validity of her detention. She did not allege that she received inadequate medical treatment.
The Clinical Director argued that the relevant statutory duties rested with the Commission or a tribunal, and that hospital staff had no direct obligation beyond co-operation. The court agreed that no breach of an express statutory duty by the hospital was alleged. However, it found that whether the Clinical Director or senior staff had a duty to act when they ought to have known of a problem was open to legitimate debate.
Justice Clarke said there was a credible factual basis on which a trial court could find a breach if such a duty were established. He stressed that the duty’s existence and scope remained for trial. The judgment also noted that A. L. apparently continued as a voluntary patient for a time after the problem emerged; any effect on damages would be for the trial court to assess.
The court granted leave to proceed against the Clinical Director. It made no final finding of negligence, unlawful detention, liability or damages. Any allocation of liability or contribution between the Clinical Director and the Commission was also left for trial.