A human rights claim against Manx Care and the Department of Health and Social Care over a care home resident’s treatment can continue, a deemster has ruled.

The High Court has ruled in favour of extending the time limit for the civil claim by the man who is living with Parkinson’s disease.

The man, represented by his daughter as his ‘litigation friend’, has submitted what amounts to an ‘elder abuse claim’ following his time at Southlands Resource Centre in Port Erin between February 14, 2022 and August 18, 2023.

In the judgement issued by Deemster John Needham, it says: ‘The particulars allege there was negligence and breaches of duty by both Defendants resulting in the claimant suffering personal injury, both physical and mental, during his 18-month residence at Southlands, and the breaches, taken cumulatively, were such as to interfere with the Claimant’s right not to suffer torture or inhumane or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.’

Manx Care and the Department of Health and Social Care applied to have the claim dismissed as it had missed the time limit.

The claim alleges there were systemic failures at Southlands which led to physical and mental injuries, with a safeguarding report published in October 2023 substantiating concerns about ‘organisational abuse’.

Within the claim there are also ‘allegations of neglect, abuse, failure of proper incident reporting and a failure to consult the family in care planning’ as well as further allegations the claimant’s condition and needs had ‘not been properly assessed’.

The size of the claim was quantified as being between £100,000 and £150,000.

Deemster Needham acknowledged the delay in filing the human rights claim – between six and nine months outside of the time limit - but felt it was fair to grant an extension.

In allowing the claim to proceed, Deemster Needham said in his judgement: ‘Without giving any definitive indication on the merits of the case, it is clear that something went badly wrong in the management of Southlands at the time the claimant was resident.

‘In light of the cumulative nature of the alleged breaches complained of here, a human rights claim appears to me to be a central part of the claimant’s case.

‘In such circumstances therefore, it appears somewhat inequitable for the claimant not to be able to pursue that course of action in circumstances where the delay was not the most lengthy.

‘Pursuing a human rights claim does not significantly put the defendants at any greater effort overall regarding its defence of the claim but the human rights claim may improve the chances of early disposal of the case as a whole.

‘Furthermore, again without commenting unduly on the merits of the case, it strikes me that the chronic nature of the alleged failures as suggested in the allegations of breach of duty contained in the particulars of claim, and the way both defendants are said to have acted, if proved, would raise a matter of significant public interest.’