I am conscious of the need for a sub-editor to work on a title such as the above but read this...
Trent Strategic Health Authority* has been held guilty by the House of Lords of ruining Mr and Mrs Jain's nursing home business and causing them "serious economic harm" on the basis of a
"without notice application that ought never to have been made".
[*Note: Trent's liability arises as successor to the Nottingham Health Authority, as is made clear in the judgments. But "they inherit any liability incurred by their predecessors". ]
Yet, Mr and Mrs Jain have no redress under English domestic law and will receive no compensation.
All of the law lords expressed great sympathy for the Jains and reached this second conclusion
"with regret" for their
"undeserved fate".
Many will be be of the view that where a government established body causes financial ruin to those subject to its authority AND is found to have behaved wholly improperly BUT its victims have no remedy THEN it follows that:
(a) something has gone badly wrong with the law; and
(b) a serious injustice has been allowed by the law to happen.
This is simply a logical proposition based on underlying assumptions concerning morality and justice. The assumptions are shared by most who live in democratic societies (of whatever religion or none). Such people may struggle to understand this decision but only if they are not also lawyers. We lot are used to the discordance between the law on one hand and justice on the other. It's one of the things that get us a bad name.
You should read the judgments by following the
title link if you want to see how this discordance occurs.
Let us look at what Trent did (this is paragraphs 6-9 of the judgment of Lord Scott of Foscote):
"6. Mr and Mrs Jain's only recourse was to appeal to a Registered Homes Tribunal. This they did. But there was no procedure available for an expedited appeal and no procedure enabling a stay of the magistrate's order pending an appeal to be obtained. We were told that the procedures under which appeals to a Registered Homes Tribunal can be made lead to a minimum delay of six weeks before an appeal can be heard. In the event, Mr and Mrs Jain's appeal was not heard until February 1999, over four months after the order had been made, and, not surprisingly, by the time the appeal was heard irrevocable damage had already been done to their nursing home business, with an adverse knock-on effect on other assets that they owned.
7. The appeal, heard by the Tribunal on 8 and 9 February 1999, was a resounding success. But the success came too late to afford them more than the satisfaction of vindication. The Tribunal, having heard evidence from the Authority in purported justification for the action they had taken, did not call for any evidence from the Jains in response and were scathing in their criticism of the Authority. In the Tribunal's nineteen page Reasons For Decision one reads of the inclusion of irrelevant and prejudicial information in the statutory statement that had been placed by the Authority before the magistrate, of insinuations by the Authority of abuse of residents notwithstanding the absence of evidence sufficient to justify any charges of abuse, and of untrue suggestions by the Authority of failure by the Jains to comply with various statutory regulations. Some of the complaints made in the statutory statement about the running of the nursing home did, in the view of the Tribunal, have some substance but, commented the Tribunal, "none warranted the immediate closure of the home". They said that "there was no reason for supposing that the residents could not properly have been protected by proper monitoring by the inspectors and the provision of advice where necessary". The statutory statement had complained that building works of improvement being carried out at Ash Lea Court had produced an unsatisfactory physical environment for the residents, but the Tribunal noted that there was no evidence that the dust from the building works "posed any risk to the life or health of the residents" and concluded that the conditions at Ash Lea Court had not justified an application for an order under section 30 :
"… the respondents have wholly failed to persuade us that an application for an order cancelling registration under section 30 was an appropriate way of meeting [the Authority's concerns about the running of the nursing home]"
8. The Tribunal was particularly scathing about the Authority's decision to make their application ex parte and without notice to the Jains. While accepting that there had been "no bad faith" on the part of the officials who, on behalf of the Authority, had been responsible for making the application, the Tribunal said that they could see
"… no justification whatever for the failure to warn [the Jains] that the application was to be made"
So the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the magistrate's order of 1 October 1998 and expressed, as a coda, their regret that they had no power to order the Authority to pay Mr and Mrs Jain's costs: cold comfort, no doubt, for the Jains.
9. The upshot of this sad story is that Mr and Mrs Jain's nursing home business had been ruined and serious economic harm had been inflicted on them by an ex parte without notice application that ought never to have been made".
Well, there you go Mr and Mrs Jaine. Trent are wholly discredited, have abused their powers, you have been ruined and all you get is "vindication". Oh, you can try your luck in Europe if you like. You will need to finance it if you can or get funding from the LSC.
You might also sympathise with the Jaines in respect of the finding of no bad faith. Read all of the judgments. I do.
Labels: abuse, admin, bureaucracy, cretins, disgusted of tunbridge wells, fearful, human rights, justice, law, legal, local authorities, local authority lawyers, really bad lawyers
