R (on the application of Maguire) v His Majesty’s Senior Coroner for Blackpool & Fylde and another
[2023] UKSC 20
Mark Anthony Sammut & Ors v Next Steps Mental Healthcare Limited & Anor
2 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2265 (KB)
High Court
A man died in a private mental health facility that received money from the government. His family sued, but the judge said the facility wasn't responsible because it wasn't officially a part of the government despite its funding, and the mistakes made weren't serious enough to break human rights laws.
Key Facts
- •Paul Sammut, suffering from schizophrenia, died on 20 April 2019.
- •He resided at a facility operated by Next Steps Mental Healthcare Limited (First Defendant), where his deprivation of liberty was unauthorized.
- •His death was attributed to bronchopneumonia, large intestinal obstruction, and faecal impaction related to Clozapine side effects.
- •Claimants (Paul's estate, mother, sister, and nephew) sued Next Steps and Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (Second Defendant).
- •Next Steps applied to strike out or obtain summary judgment on parts of the claim relating to the Human Rights Act 1998.
- •The First Defendant's facility was a secure unit, funded largely by public bodies.
- •A Form 3 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards assessment indicated the placement was 'imputable to the State'.
Legal Principles
Summary judgment test (CPR 24): Claimant has no real prospect of success, no compelling reason for trial.
CPR 24
Strike out test (CPR 3.4): Claim discloses no legally recognizable claim or is obviously ill-founded.
CPR 3.4
Public authority under HRA s.6(3)(b): 'any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature'. Nature of act considered.
Human Rights Act 1998, s.6(3)(b), s.6(5)
YL v Birmingham City Council: Private care home, even if state-funded, generally not a public authority unless specific statutory powers are present.
YL v Birmingham City Council [2007] UKHL 27
Care Act 2014, s.73: Provides for private care homes to be considered public authorities in specific circumstances; not applicable here.
Care Act 2014, s.73
Article 2 ECHR: Substantive systems and operational duties; Exceptional circumstances required for state responsibility for healthcare providers' negligence.
Article 2 ECHR; R (Maguire) v HM Senior Coroner for Blackpool and Fylde [2023] UKSC 20; Fernandes v Portugal (2017) 66 EHRR 28
Outcomes
HRA claims against First Defendant struck out.
First Defendant was not a public authority; its functions were private despite state funding and regulation. The absence of special statutory powers was crucial.
Article 2 claim against First Defendant struck out (alternative outcome).
Claimants failed to demonstrate 'exceptional circumstances' required for state responsibility for healthcare provider negligence under Article 2; claims amounted to medical negligence, not a breach of Article 2.