You are here

R (on the application of SUNDERLAND CITY COUNCIL) (Appellant) v SOUTH TYNESIDE COUNCIL (Respondent) & (1) SF (2) LEEDS CITY COUNCIL (Interested Parties)

The guidance in Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [2001] UKHL 57, [2002] 1 A.C. 547 would be helpful in determining where a patient had been “resident” for the purpose of deciding which local social services authority should be responsible for his after-care under the Mental Health Act 1983 s.117; accordingly, it would be a question of determining the place where he had in fact resided, as long as that place was voluntarily accepted by him.

11 October 2012

[2012] EWCA Civ 1232

CA (Civ Div) - Lloyd LJ, Richards LJ, Elias LJ

9 October 2012

The appellant local authority (S) appealed against a decision ([2011] EWHC 2355 (Admin), [2011] M.H.L.R. 374) that it, rather than the respondent local authority (T), would be responsible under the Mental Health Act 1983 s.117 for the after-care of the first interested party (F) after she was discharged from the hospital where she was undergoing treatment.

In September 2009, Leeds City Council had placed F, who had previously been detained under s.3 of the 1983 Act, on a course at a college in S’s area. She resided at a hall of residence in S’s area from September 14 until October 3, when she attempted to commit suicide. On October 7, she was moved to an NHS hospital (R) in T’s area, a move to which she consented. On October 23, the coll...

Want to read on?

This article is part of our subscription-based access. Please pick one of the options below to continue.

Already registered? Login to access premium content

SUBSCRIBE for one User

Unlimited access to the entire SJ website for a full year for one user.

  • 10 issues a year delivered to you
  • Digital edition of the magazine for one user – sent to your inbox or accessible through the website
  • Access to premium content on the website
  • Access to the fully searchable online archive of Solicitors Journal, Managing Partner and Private Client Adviser, which spans over 13 years
  • Weekly email newsletter with all the latest news, analysis and features
  • Comment on SJ content and contribute to the SJ community online
  • Advanced search feature
  • Online support
  • Access to SJ app compatible with Android and Apple devices – coming soon!
  • 6 special focuses per year
  • Special offers and discounts on Solicitors Journal and IICJ events

Subscribe

CORPORATE SUBSCRIPTION

Your department or entire firm can subscribe to Solicitors Journal online, providing easy access for all who require it. Discount corporate subscription rates apply, based on number of users.

The Corporate IP Licence includes:

  • Digital copy of the magazine sent to individuals’ inboxes and accessible through the website. Solicitors Journal publishes 10 issues per year
  • Unlimited access to premium content on the website based on IP addresses
  • Unlimited access to the fully searchable online archive of Solicitors Journal, Managing Partner and Private Client Adviser, which spans over 13 years
  • Weekly email newsletter with all the latest news, analysis and features
  • Comment on SJ content and contribute to the SJ community online (username required)
  • Unlimited access to SJ app compatible with Android and Apple devices
  • 6 special focuses per year
  • Special offers and discounts on Solicitors Journal and IICJ events

The Corporate IP Licence is tailored to your firm, making it the most cost effective way for the firm to access Solicitors Journal, and enables the firm to remain compliant with copyright and our Terms and Conditions. This gives you the ability to print and circulate articles within the firm.

To enquire about a Corporate IP Licence for your firm, please contact our Subscriptions Manager on emily.beechey@solicitorsjournal.com.