Watson v Cade

For the reasons stated, I feel bound to come to the conclusion that the defendant has failed to show a legal justification for the restraint which he placed upon the plaintiff for the purpose of taking him to the hospital and that he must be held liable for it. I should have been glad to be able to hold that the law did justify his actions. I find he acted in good faith and that he believed that he was entitled to do what he did and that it was right to do it. But this belief is irrelevant, in my opinion, to his responsibility in law for acts which were prima facie an infringement of the plaintiff's rights, although it is highly relevant to the question of the amount of damages which should be awarded. It is to be regretted that the Act, upon the view that I have taken of it, leaves the defendant without protection. There must be many cases in which persons acting in good faith have rendered or will render themselves liable for acts having the purpose of making possible the admission into hospital, pursuant to s. 42 of the Act, of persons whose admission would have been or would be highly desirable. If no appeal is brought from my decision in this case or if upon such an appeal the Court should come to the same conclusion as to the lack of statutory authority for what the defendant did, it seems plain that the matter is one which should receive the early attention of the legislature.

I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from the defendant in respect of the restraint placed upon him from the time when he submitted to the defendant's statement that he would be taken to the hospital, until the time when he was received by the hospital authorities and admitted to the hospital. In my opinion, it is plain that the defendant should not be held liable for damages for the subsequent detention of the plaintiff. The admission of the plaintiff into hospital and his detention in it were lawful. They were expressly authorized by s. 42 (1). I hold that the documents mentioned in that subsection, which were produced in this case, complied with the statutory requirements. They were in the forms, or were to the like effect as the forms, set out in the Regulations made under the Act. See the Mental Health Regulations 1962, reg. 94 and sched. 19; and the Mental Health (Schedules) Regulations 1966, schedules 9 and 20. The plaintiff claimed that there were errors in the particulars contained in the forms. But no such errors as he alleged would prevent the documents from answering the description of the documents to which s. 42 (1) refers.