Description
Local Authority: The Claimant was allowed to argue at trial that the local authority owed him a duty in respect of its after-care services after providing him with care in the community even though the case was fraught with difficulties because the law was still developing and the decision in Clunis v Camden and Islington HA was not the last part of that development. The Claimant was also permitted to argue that in light of Artilces 3 and 8 of the ECHR the limitation on liability under s. 117 (2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 did not extend to the facts of the case although arguments based on Article 2 were hopelessly weak and could not be permitted to continue.
