Foundations in Law 1
Lumba v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 1 is a leading case on
false imprisonment due to its role in establishing the entitlement of claimants to damages in
such cases. This was created whereby the appellants appealed the Court of Appeal decision 2
to reject their claims for damages for unlawful detention pending deportation following the
adherence to an unpublished policy. This decision was held in the Supreme Court since,
although the appellants detention had not rested on a lawful decision and therefore
satisfied the conditions of false imprisonment, they were entitled to nominal damages only
as no additional losses were suffered than had they been detained lawfully under the
published policy.
A case in which the decision in Lumba was considered was that of Bostridge v Oxleas NHS
Foundation Trust.3 In this, it was ruled based on both Lumba and Kambadzi v. Secretary of
State4 that a mentally disordered patient who was unlawfully detained was only entitled to
nominal damages as no additional losses had been suffered because of the detention. This
was seen as, had the claimant not been unlawfully detained by not holding a valid CTO, they
would have been lawfully admitted and detained pursuant to the MHA5 and suffered the
same losses they had under the illegal detention. This follows the principle established in
Lumba that there’s no concept of ‘vindicatory’ damages in English and Welsh law and that
damages for false imprisonment will be only nominal where there are no additional losses
suffered because of the unlawful detention. This fact lies at the core of the similarities the
court found between the cases.
Despite this however, a distinction between the cases was alluded to in this area in the
courts consideration that the cause and nature of the illegal detention may have an impact
on the damages the claimants were entitled to. This case was presented by Mr Edwards 6
who argued that whilst in Lumba, the illegality lay in the implementation of unlawful policy,
in the case of Bostridge, it was a threshold failure that caused the detention to be unlawful.
1
R. (on the application of Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 12; [2012] 1 AC
245
2
R (WL (Congo)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] CA, [2010] 1 WLR 2168
3
Lee Bostridge (A patient, by his litigation friend, Susan St James) v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust [2014] CC
4
R (SK (Zimbabwe)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 23; [2011] 1 WLR 1299
5
Mental Health Act 1983 s 3
6
Lee Bostridge (A patient, by his litigation friend, Susan St James) v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust [2014] CC,
[18]
Lumba v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 1 is a leading case on
false imprisonment due to its role in establishing the entitlement of claimants to damages in
such cases. This was created whereby the appellants appealed the Court of Appeal decision 2
to reject their claims for damages for unlawful detention pending deportation following the
adherence to an unpublished policy. This decision was held in the Supreme Court since,
although the appellants detention had not rested on a lawful decision and therefore
satisfied the conditions of false imprisonment, they were entitled to nominal damages only
as no additional losses were suffered than had they been detained lawfully under the
published policy.
A case in which the decision in Lumba was considered was that of Bostridge v Oxleas NHS
Foundation Trust.3 In this, it was ruled based on both Lumba and Kambadzi v. Secretary of
State4 that a mentally disordered patient who was unlawfully detained was only entitled to
nominal damages as no additional losses had been suffered because of the detention. This
was seen as, had the claimant not been unlawfully detained by not holding a valid CTO, they
would have been lawfully admitted and detained pursuant to the MHA5 and suffered the
same losses they had under the illegal detention. This follows the principle established in
Lumba that there’s no concept of ‘vindicatory’ damages in English and Welsh law and that
damages for false imprisonment will be only nominal where there are no additional losses
suffered because of the unlawful detention. This fact lies at the core of the similarities the
court found between the cases.
Despite this however, a distinction between the cases was alluded to in this area in the
courts consideration that the cause and nature of the illegal detention may have an impact
on the damages the claimants were entitled to. This case was presented by Mr Edwards 6
who argued that whilst in Lumba, the illegality lay in the implementation of unlawful policy,
in the case of Bostridge, it was a threshold failure that caused the detention to be unlawful.
1
R. (on the application of Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 12; [2012] 1 AC
245
2
R (WL (Congo)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] CA, [2010] 1 WLR 2168
3
Lee Bostridge (A patient, by his litigation friend, Susan St James) v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust [2014] CC
4
R (SK (Zimbabwe)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 23; [2011] 1 WLR 1299
5
Mental Health Act 1983 s 3
6
Lee Bostridge (A patient, by his litigation friend, Susan St James) v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust [2014] CC,
[18]
