In a landmark decision the admin court restated the law that had been set out by Leveson J in the case of Damian Tinsley v Sarker way back in 2005 which was the case in which I was the lead solicitor.
In that case one of the major issues that Leveson J had to decide was whether Damian should receive compensation for the cost of his ongoing care needs which were substantial in circumstances where he was entitled to receive the costs of his after care from the State through section 117 of the of the Mental Health act 1983. The defendants argued it would amount to a possible windfall to Damian and double recovery which was rejected for a number of reasons set out in the judgement see in my case study and the link to the reported case.
Damian was back at court as there were concerns his previous deputy had misappropriated his funds following the settlement as such he was in need of the support from section 117 to help fund his on going care and support. The Manchester city council and South Manchester CCG argued that if he received this he would once again be in receipt of double recovery but this was rejected so Damian has won again and so has justice as through no fault of his own he was facing an uncertain future as his funds were depleted and he would not have been able to afford to pay for his reasonable needs which were as a direct result of the severe brain injury he suffered in the car accident all those years ago set out in my case study.