View source for R (B) v Camden London Borough Council (2005) EWHC 1366 (Admin)

''(1) Claimant unsuccessfully sought damages for breach of statutory duty under [[s117]] causing delay after deferred conditional discharge. (2) A person who 'may be in need of such services' under s47 [[NHSCCA 1990]] is a person 'who may be in need at the time, or who may be about to be in need': (a) this includes the situation after a deferred conditional discharge decision; (b) obiter, the judge inclined to the view that it also includes a patient who may reasonably be considered to be liable to have such an order made in an impending tribunal hearing. 

==Extract==
66. In my judgment, the words "a person … may be in need of such services" refer to a person who may be in need at the time, or who may be about to be in need. A detained patient who is the subject of a deferred conditional discharge decision of a tribunal, which envisages his conditional discharge once section 117 after-care services are in place, is a person who "may be in need of such services", since if such services are available to him he will be discharged and immediately need them. Whether a patient who may reasonably be considered to be liable to have such an order made in an impending tribunal hearing is an issue I do not have to decide in the instant case, but I incline to the view that he is.

==Notes==
No damages would have been awarded anyway as defendants not the detaining authority (obiter). But see [[TTM v LB Hackney (2011) EWCA Civ 4]].

==Related cases==

[[R (B) v London Borough of Camden (2006) EWCA Civ 246]] 

* [[R (B) v Camden London Borough Council (2005) EWHC 1366 (Admin)]] (substantive hearing)

:* [[R (B) v London Borough of Camden (2004) EWHC 2348 (Admin)]] (oral permission hearing)

== Resources ==

{{#bailii:[2005] EWHC 1366 (Admin)}}



[[Category:After-care]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2005 cases]]