Analysis
The claimant sustained head injuries in a traffic accident in 1984. By 2004, he had been detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (the 1983 Act), and while in hospital, his responsible medical officer under s34 of the 1983 Act completed a supervision application under s25A in respect of him. This explained that after-care under supervision was necessary for the claimant. It provided for the claimant’s attendance at an outpatient clinic, and cooperation with a care plan, but did not include the details of after-care services.
The claimant was discharged from hospital on 21 October 2004 on the basis that he would be subject to after-care under supervision. The bodies responsible for that after-care under s117 of the 1983 Act were identified as Worcestershire County Council (the council) and Worcestershire Mental Partnership NHS Trust. The care plan presumably agreed between the claimant and his case manager had not come to light at the date of the hearing.
Between November 2004 and April 2006, the claimant lived at the Community of St Antony and St Elias in Devon. He then moved into a home of his own, but with the benefit of full-time carers. The cost of after-care services were paid for out of his personal funds by his deputy. The deputy had raised the issue of funding with the council in 2006, seeking confirmation that the claimant was entitled to funding for after-care services. The council stated that it required further disclosure before it could address the matters which had been raised.
On 6 March 2015, the claimant issued proceedings seeking restitution of £644,645.87 spent by the deputy on his behalf, on the basis that the defendants had failed to provide the services that they had considered should be supplied. The defendants made an application to strike out the proceedings on the footing that the claim was not properly the subject of private law proceedings. The issues were (1) whether it was in principle possible for the claimant to bring a restitutionary claim; (2) if so, whether the claim should have been brought by way of judicial review, rather than as a CPR Pt 7 claim.
Held:
- 1) The claimant’s claim was based in part on the proposition that payments made on his behalf relieved the defendants of liabilities which they ought to have been bearing under s117 of the 1983 Act. However failure to perform a public law duty had never in itself been held to be an unjust factor for the purposes of a claim in unjust enrichment or a sufficient basis for any other restitutionary claim.
- 2) It was however at least seriously arguable that, on the facts asserted by the claimant, the defendants had been enriched at his expense as a result of a mistake. However it is not easy to see on the facts how the claimant could establish that the payments were made under mistake. However the application to strike out was not advanced on that basis. It was not demonstrated that the claimant could not have a restitutionary remedy against the defendants.
- 3) The claimant was asserting a private law claim, albeit one that raised a question as to whether the defendants had performed public law duties, and the claim did not, it seems, involve any allegation that the defendants had failed to perform their statutory duty to assess and determine the claimant’s s117 needs.
- 4) Further, while CPR 54.3 allowed ‘restitution’ to be claimed within judicial review applications, such an application still could not be for restitution alone (see CPR 54.3(2)) and yet the claimant’s concern was to obtain financial redress rather than any other relief.
- 5) It was, moreover, far from clear that a private law claim for restitution such as the claimant was bringing should be subject to the strict time limits applicable to judicial review applications rather than the limitation periods laid down for private law claims generally.
- 6) The application was to be dismissed.
Continue reading "Richards v Worcestershire County Council & anr [2016] EWHC 1954 (Ch)"