19.125.1R (Damien Tinsley) v Manchester CC [2016] EWHC 2855 (Admin)
A person was entitled to after-care services free of charge notwithstanding his possession of a substantial personal injury award that would enable him to purchase such services and that he had been awarded for that purpose
Facts: Mr Tinsley had been awarded very substantial personal injury damages for a form of personal injury which had resulted in a personality order entailing his detention under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and his damages award included an award for his future care, the Judge having formed the view that he would not seek statutory after-care services under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. However, for various reasons, Mr Tinsley then did so.
Judgment: Deputy High Court Judge Stephen Davies held that it was unnecessary to consider the rationale for Mr Tinsley’s actions and whether the purpose of the personal injury had become frustrated: as a matter of statutory construction Manchester had not been entitled to charge for after-care services – see
R v Manchester CC ex p Stennett (para
19.118 above). Since after-care services had to be provided to a person irrespective of their means, it would be anomalous if a person in receipt of a personal injury award was in a worse position than a wealthy person. The Administrative Court was not entitled to prevent Mr Tinsley or his deputy from making an application for statutory services to which he was entitled, unless that application could be objectively justified by a change of circumstances since the date of the personal injury award.