- Entitlement to after-care services under MeHA 1983, s 117 (Tinsley v Manchester City Council)
- Original news
- What is the impact of this case? What does it mean for practitioners?
- What issues did this case raise? Why is it significant?
- How helpful is the judgment in clarifying the law in this area? Are there any remaining grey areas?
- How does all this fit with in with other developments in this area? Do you have any predictions for future developments?
Personal Injury analysis: Jenni Richards QC and Adam Fullwood, barristers at 39 Essex Chambers, examine the meaning and effect of the judgment in Tinsley v Manchester City Council in which the court allowed the deputy’s claim for judicial review against the local authority’s decision not to provide after-care services under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MeHA 1983).
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial