View source for DD v Durham County Council (2013) EWCA Civ 96, (2013) MHLO 31

''DD wished to bring proceedings against local authorities arguing that (a) the two assessing AMHPs owed a duty to him (a legal responsibility not only for assessing whether the patient should be detained, but also for the suitability of the hospital at which the patient was to be detained and the regime under which he would be held); (b) that by making the application for admission, each was in breach of duty; and (c) that the county council was responsible vicariously for that breach of duty. (1) The Court of Appeal (reversing the High Court decision in this respect) decided that the argument was sufficient for leave under [[s139]] to bring proceedings to be granted. (2) DD should not have been made responsible for the costs of Middlesbrough City Council.''

==Related judgments==
[[DD v Durham County Council (2013) EWCA Civ 96, (2013) MHLO 31]]
*[[DD v Durham County Council (2012) EWHC 1053 (QB), (2012) MHLO 51]]

==Appeal status/thanks==
The claim against Durham was ultimately discontinued. 

{{thanks|Buttler, Chris|Matrix Chambers|providing appeal status information (email 4/4/16)}}

==External link==
{{#bailii:(2013) EWCA Civ 96}}

[[Category:Miscellaneous cases]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2013 cases]]