Facts: JM had lived in Hammersmith’s area for some years but Hammersmith then placed him in Sutton’s area, under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948. After compulsory admissions to hospital under sections 2 and 3 of the Mental Health Act (MHA) 1983, the question arose as to which authority was responsible for the provision of after-care services under MHA 1983 s117. Hertfordshire claimed that the deeming provision in section 24(5) of the NAA 1948 required JM to be treated as continuing to be ordinarily resident in Hammersmith.

Judgment: the Court of Appeal (Carnwath, Rimer and Sullivan LJJ) held that the deeming provision at NAA 1948 s24(5) only applied for the purposes of the NAA 1948 and not for the purposes of the MHA 1983. Since in actual fact JM had been ordinarily resident in Sutton prior to his sections, Sutton was responsible under MHA 1983 s117. An agreement reached between various groups of local authorities did not give rise to a legitimate expectation that Hammersmith would accept responsibility and, in any event, even if it did, that would not allow statutory responsibility to be avoided.

Comment: On the face of it, this case would be decided in the same way now, unless a purposive construction was applied by analogy with the Cornwall decision, so that Hammersmith was treated as continuing to hold responsibility.