View source for R (Sunderland City Council) v South Tyneside Council (2011) EWHC 2355 (Admin)

''SF moved from a residential college in Sunderland (ESPA) to a hospital in South Tyneside (Rose Lodge), initially informally then under section 3; the placement in Sunderland was terminated because of the hospital stay. The judge drew 10 propositions from the law, and concluded that Sunderland remained the authority with aftercare responsibility under s117. Relevant considerations were that (a) the informal admission was close to being involuntary (through force of circumstances) and was in what was intended to be short-term accommodation, (b) the termination of the Sunderland placement was not voluntary, and (c) the Tyneside placement was not part of SF's regular order of life or for a settled purpose.'' [Caution: overturned on appeal.]

==Related judgment==
[[R (Sunderland City Council) v South Tyneside Council (2012) EWCA Civ 1232, (2012) MHLO 117]]
*[[R (Sunderland City Council) v South Tyneside Council (2011) EWHC 2355 (Admin)]]

==Other==
Hearing and judgment: 15/7/11

Before: Langstaff J

Mr Harrop-Griffiths (instructed by Sunderland City Council) appeared on behalf of the Claimant.

Mr Mitford (instructed by South Tyneside Council) appeared on behalf of the Defendant. 

==External link==
{{#bailii:(2011) EWHC 2355 (Admin)}}

[[Category:After-care]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2011 cases]]