Facts: there was a dispute over which local authority was responsible for providing after-care services for SF, under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. SF had lived in halls of residence at a college in Sunderland (having been placed there by Leeds) but had then moved voluntarily to reside in a hospital in the South Tyneside area before being detained in hospital.

Judgment: the Court of Appeal (Lloyd, Richards and Elias LJJ) held that South Tyneside was responsible because once Leeds terminated the college placement there was no place that could be regarded as SF’s residence, other than the hospital. Ultimately, what was important was the place where a person in fact resided and if that place was, ultimately, voluntarily adopted, the reason why they were there was irrelevant.

Comment: this case would be decided in the same way under the current legislation. It emphasises that, in this context, ‘voluntary’ simply means ‘not under compulsion’ rather than ‘in the exercise of a positive choice’.