Blehein v Murphy

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Geoghegan
• Judgment Date: 02 July 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] IEHC 183
• Court: High Court
• Date: 02 July 1999

[1999] IEHC 183

THE HIGH COURT

No. 24 I.A./1998

BLEHEIN v. MURPHY & ORS

IN THE MATTER OF THE COURTS OF JUSTICE ACTS, 1924 TO 1961 AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACTS, 1961 TO

1981 AND 1981 AND

IN THE MATTER OF AN INTENDED ACTION

BETWEEN

LOUIS BLEHEIN

PLAINTIFF

AND

SEAN G. MURPHY, FIONNUALA KENNEDY, PATRICIA BLEHEIN, RICHARD QUINLIVAN, THOMAS O'CONNOR AND DESMOND NOLAN

DEFENDANTS

Citations:

MENTAL TREATMENT ACT 1945 S260

MURPHY V GREENE 1990 2 IR 566

LUNACY ACT 1890 S330

SHACKLETON V SWIFT 1913 2 KB 304

MENTAL TREATMENT ACT 1953 S5

Synopsis

Medical Law

Mental health; certification; applicant seeks leave to institute proceedings under s.260, Mental Treatment Act, 1945; applicant claimed that two doctors, in conspiracy with his wife, fraudulently certified him and arranged for his being taken to and detained in hospital; whether applicant had made out substantial grounds for contending that persons against whom proceedings were to be brought had acted in bad faith or without reasonable care.

Held: Leave refused.

Blehein v. Kennedy - High Court: Geoghegan J. - 02/07/1999

While the applicant sought leave under section 260 of the Mental Treatment Act 1945 to institute proceedings against two doctors, his wife and three gardai for being taken against his will to a private psychiatric hospital in 1987 and claimed that the two doctors fraudulently certified him as part of a conspiracy with his wife, the onus of proof on the applicant went beyond establishing a prima facie case. In deciding the preliminary question of whether there were substantial grounds for contending that all of the proposed defendants acted in bad faith or without reasonable care the court was satisfied on the evidence that there was no mala fides on anybody's part. Even on the applicant's own version of events the court did not accept that the Gardaí took the applicant into detention before the certificate was signed or at the very least that that had been proved as a matter of probability. In any event leave would be refused on the grounds of statute bar. The High Court so held in refusing to grant the relief claimed.

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Geoghegan delivered on the 2nd day of July, 1999

2 This is an application under Section 260 of the Mental Treatment Act, 1945for leave to the Applicant to institute proceedings against two doctors, his own wife and three members of the Garda Siochana in respect of his being taken against his will to St. John of God's Hospital, Stillorgan, Dublin in 1987.

3 He claims that the two doctors fraudulently certified him as part of a conspiracy with his wife.

4 He claims that his wife knowingly arranged for and procured his being conveyed to and detained in St. John of God's Hospital unlawfully and unconstitutionally. As against two of the proposed Garda Defendants the claim is that they unlawfully and unconstitutionally took the Applicant into detention before the doctors signed the certificates and that, at any rate, they escorted the Applicant to hospital without lawful authority. The third Garda is joined for technical reasons which in the event are no longer relevant.

5 A draft plenary summons has been exhibited and from the general endorsement of claim it is possible to discern the following alleged causes of action:-

6 (1) Fraud.

7 (2) Libel.

8 (3) Slander.

9 (4) Unlawful arrest.

10 (5) Unlawful detention.

11 (6) Conspiracy.

12 (7) Violation of the privacy of the Applicant's dwelling (i.e. breach of constitutional right).

13 It is to be noted that "negligence" is not included.

14 As I indicated at the end of the hearing, the Applicant is to be complemented on the competent and courteous way in which he presented his case. But I am satisfied that leave must be refused.

15 Section 260 provides that leave is not to be granted unless the High Court is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for contending that the person against whom the proceedings are to be brought acted in bad faith or without reasonable care. McCarthy J. in Murphy -v- Greene ...