McDowell v Lynch

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 08 December 1952
• Date: 08 December 1952
• Court: Supreme Court

McDowell v. Lynch.

WILLIAM McDOWELL

Plaintiff

and

JAMES A. LYNCH, Defendant (1)

High Court.

Supreme Court.

Limitation of action - Proceedings against authorised medical officer for negligence and breach of duty in making a recommendation for reception into a mental institution - Statutory duties - Appropriate period within which such proceedings should be instituted - Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict., c. 61), s. 1 - Mental Treatment Act, 1945 (No. 19 of 1945),ss. 162, 163, 171, 259.

The appropriate period of limitation within which proceedings by a person, who has been detained in a mental institution, against an authorised medical officer, in respect of a recommendation for reception made by him in purported pursuance of the Mental Treatment Act, 1945, should be commenced is that prescribed by s. 259 of the Mental Treatment Act, 1945. The provisions of this Act show the clear intention of the Oireachtas to provide in the particular case, where a person has been detained in a mental institution and has ceased to be so detained, a new period of limitation within which proceedings may be commenced, notwithstanding the fact that the person whose actions are challenged would otherwise have had the protection of the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893.

So held by the Supreme Court.

Witness Action.

On the 20th January, 1948, the plaintiff's wife signed an application for his reception into a mental institution in pursuance of s. 162 of the Mental Treatment Act, 1945. On the same date the defendant, who was the authorised medical officer under the said Act for the Dispensary District of Stamullen, in the County of Meath, signed a recommendation for the reception of the plaintiff into the District Mental Hospital at Mullingar as a person of unsound mind. The plaintiff was received into the hospital on the 21st January, 1948, under a reception order of that date and was detained therein until the 11th March, 1949, on which date he was discharged following an inquiry before Mr. Justice Davitt and a jury on the 8th and 9th March, 1949.

On an application of the plaintiff, dated the 13th July, 1949, Mr. Justice Dixon, on the 28th July, made an order, under s. 260 of the Mental Treatment Act, 1945, giving the plaintiff liberty to institute civil proceedings for damages against the defendant, and, on the 15th August, an originating summons, claiming damages from the defendant for negligence, breach of statutory duty, malicious and wrongful arrest, and false imprisonment, was issued. The action came on for trial before Mr. Justice Haugh on the 10th May, 1950, and, at the conclusion of the case for the plaintiff, the trial Judge acceded to an application of counsel for the defendant and ruled that the action was

one to which the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, applied; as the proceedings had not been commenced within the period prescribed by the said Act, he accordingly entered judgment for the defendant.

The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the trial Judge had misdirected himself in law in ruling that the action was one to which the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, applied and in directing that judgment should be entered in favour of the defendant.

Cur. adv. vult.

Maguire C.J. :—

The Judgment of the Court will be read by Mr. Justice Lavery.

Lavery J. :—

On the 20th January, 1948, the plaintiff's wife signed an application under s. 162 of the Mental Treatment Act, 1945, directed to the defendant, Dr. J. C. Lynch, who is the authorised medical officer of the Stamullen Dispensary District in which the plaintiff and his wife resided, asking for a recommendation for the reception of the plaintiff in the District Mental Hospital at Mullingar as a person of unsound mind and as a chargeable patient.

On the same date the defendant made and signed the recommendation asked for and therein stated that as required by s. 163 of the Act he had that day examined the plaintiff and was of opinion that he was a person of unsound mind and a proper person to be taken charge of and detained under care and treatment. The defendant further set out, as required...