Tinsley v Manchester City Council [2016] EWHC 2855 (Admin)

After-care payments and double recovery "Thus there is a fundamental issue between the parties which they require the court to resolve, which is whether or not it is lawful for the defendant to refuse to provide after-care services to the claimant under s117 on the basis that he has no need of such provision because he is able to fund it himself from his personal injury damages. The claimant's position is that this is unlawful, and represents a thinly disguised attempt to charge through the back door in this particular category of cases when the House of Lords has confirmed in Stennett that it is impermissible to do so in any circumstances. The defendant's position is that to allow the claimant's deputy to claim the provision of after-care services on his behalf under s.117 would offend against the principle against double recovery which has been established in the decided cases in the personal injury field, most notably by the Court of Appeal in Crofton v NHSLA (2007) EWCA Civ 71^B, (2007) 1 WLR 923^B and Peters v East Midlands SHA (2009) EWCA Civ 145, (2010) QB 48^B."

Essex search

This case's neutral citation number appears in the following newsletters:

• 39 Essex Chambers, 'Mental Capacity Law Newsletter' (issue 71, December 2016)

CASES DATABASE

Full judgment: BAILII

Subject(s):

• After-care🔍

Date: 10/11/16🔍

Court: High Court (Administrative Court)🔍

Judicial history:

• Tinsley v Manchester City Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1704
• Tinsley v Manchester City Council [2016] EWHC 2855 (Admin)

Judge(s):

• Stephen Davies🔍

Parties:

• Damien Tinsley🔍
• Manchester City Council🔍
• South Manchester Clinical Commissioning Group🔍

Citation number(s):

• [2016] EWHC 2855 (Admin)^B

What links here:

• Peters v East Midlands SHA [2009] EWCA Civ 145
• Tinsley v Manchester City Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1704

Published: 11/11/16 23:52

Cached: 2024-12-19 05:18:42