By Charlotte Webster-
A judge has instructed a local authority to uphold a courts decision that they must finance the costs of a man granted £3.5m in damages for an accident that led to a personality disorder.
The judge rejected an appeal by the local authority against providing mental health aftercare services to the man already awarded £3.5 million in damages for the accident that caused his personality disorder.
Manchester Council had refused to pay for aftercare for Tinsley, who suffered a personality disorder in a 1998 car accident and was later sectioned, in accordance with section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Manchester Council had argued that the man should self-fund it from his personal injury award.
Lawyers now fear that the court of appeal judgment that upheld the judicial review brought against Manchester Council on behalf of Damien Damien Tinsley, could have ”significant implications ” for local authorities at a time of financial pressure. Adam Fullwood, one of Tinsley’s barristers from the 39 Essex Chambers firm, said there was likely to be a “reasonable number” of people who had received similar awards and might at some stage seek aftercare either under section 117 of the Mental Health Act or via the Care Act. They feel those awarded substantial compensation should be able to afford their own mental health care.
Manchester’s barrister, Hilton Harrop-Griffith says the damages were intended to pay for care, arguing that for the council to also provide services would run contrary to an established principle against ‘double recovery’.
However, the Care Act 2014, expressly excludes personal injury payments from consideration as part of an individual’s capital. The council was forced to concede error because of the legislation, but legal experts remain unconvinced. Their scepticism does not tie in with the law, and when viewed properly, the courts are right. Compensation for damages has nothing to do with the responsibility of a council which still stands, it is the duty of the council to meet their obligations.
When this story was brought to the attention of the eye of media.com, it was done with the intention that we would support the view of the council and lawyers. As a matter of fact, the writer who was initially assigned the task agreed with the council, but after discussions with some other members of the team and editorial, it was concluded that the courts were right. Lawyers can’t always be correct in their thinking, in the same way that judges can get it wrong. If the council has a duty to provide a service or deliver costs, a particular level of compensation cannot change that. Otherwise, it is like saying an employer should not pay wages owed to an employee, just because the employee has won the lottery. They are two separate issues.
CRITICISM
In a blow to the hopes of the council, Justice Longmore said the council was relying on “impossible” arguments. He cited a 2002 House of Lords decision that was against charging for s117 aftercare services, and criticised Manchester for “seeking to recover by the back door what it cannot recover by the front.
Satisfied with the result, Tom Young, a solicitor from the Hugh Jones legal firm, which instructed barristers for Tinsley, said the case was important “because it confirms that financial constraints do not absolve local authorities of duties and responsibilities to society’s most vulnerable”.
DUTY
The Mental Health Act imposes a duty on local authorities after long-term detention to provide aftercare to meet an individual’s needs relating to their mental illness and reduce the risk of deterioration
Justice Leveson ruled that Tinsley was “ entitled to recover the reasonable cost of private care from [the defendant] Mr Sarkar”, with some of the damages being used to buy a house for him to live in.
Tinsley’s legal suit against the Council arose in 2009, when it was claimed that his affairs had been mismanaged.
Manchester council wrongly argued that it should have no responsibility for aftercare until the money had actually run out. But Tinsley’s lawyers counteracted that argued that this was unlawful , citing as a precedent, the Mental Health Act reached by the Lords in 2002. They successfully argued it would effectively constitute making him pay for aftercare.
A spokesperson from Manchester Council told the eye of media.com ” it seems unfair and unethical that a man who has been awarded £3.5 n in damages would still be legally permitted to be dependent on a Council , given the known budget constraints facing Councils today. The Courts have made their decision, but we are yet to decide whether to appeal it. We are still taking time to carefully reflect and assess this decision”. Manchester Council have 28 days to appeal the decision, but quite frankly, it will go nowhere”.
It just goes to show that there are different levels of understanding and expertise in different fields.