View source for Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust (2016) EWHC 3275 (QB)

{{Case
|Date=2016/12/19
|NCN=[2016] EWHC 3275 (QB)
|ICLR=[2017] WLR (D) 5
|Other citations=[2016] MHLO 56, [2017] Med LR 69, [2017] WLR 2673, (2017) 154 BMLR 67, 154 BMLR 67, [2017] 1 WLR 2673
|Court=High Court (Queen's Bench Division)
|Judges=Jay
|Parties=Ecila Henderson, Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust
|Judicial history first case=Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust (2016) EWHC 3032 (QB)
|Sentence=Ex turpi causa
|Summary="On 25th August 2010 Ms Henderson ('the Claimant') stabbed her mother to death. She was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia at the time, and her condition had recently worsened. It is common ground between the parties that this tragic event would not have happened but for the Defendant's breaches of duty in failing to respond in an appropriate way to the Claimant's mental collapse. The Claimant has now brought proceedings in the tort of negligence claiming general damages under various heads, special damages and future losses, and liability has been admitted. The Defendant's position is that all of the claims should be defeated on illegality or public policy grounds, and that binding authority of the Court of Appeal and House of Lords compels that outcome. ... In my view, there are three main questions for me to consider within the agenda circumscribed by the preliminary issue: (1) the correct interpretation of the sentencing remarks of Foskett J [in the Claimant's case], and the extent to which it is permissible, if at all, to go behind them; (2) whether there is binding authority of the Court of Appeal and House of Lords precluding some or all of these claims; and (3) if not, whether the law as accurately enunciated (there remains a dispute between the parties as to what it is) permits, or obviates, the maintenance of some or all of these claims. I frame the questions in this manner because it is the Defendant's submission that I am bound by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Clunis v Camden and Islington HA [1998] QB 978 and that of the House of Lords in Gray v Thames Trains Ltd [2009] 1 AC 1339. If I were to uphold the Defendant's submission on stare decisis, the parties are agreed that I need not express a view on question (3) above on the hypothetical basis that I might be overruled. If, on the other hand, question (3) does properly arise for decision, the parties are agreed that the case should be listed for further argument on this point. ...I ... refuse to issue a certificate under section 12 of the [[Administration of Justice Act 1969]]. I also refuse permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal for the reason indicated under paragraphs 99 and 104 above."
|External links=*[https://www.iclr.co.uk/document/2016008374/casereport_15745/html ICLR]
|Subject=Miscellaneous cases
|News=No
|RSS pubdate=2020/11/9 11:24:47 AM
}}