BA & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 944 (11 July 2012)

BA & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 944 (11 July 2012)

Given the unusual circumstances, including legal aid franchising arrangements and the position of the children, bringing a separate civil claim for damages for unlawful detention after refusal of permission in judicial review was not an abuse of process. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 944
Parties
Claimant and Respondent in the Appeal: BA; Claimant and Respondent in the Appeal: BB; Claimant and Respondent in the Appeal: BC; Claimant and Respondent in the Appeal: BD; Defendant and Appellant in the Appeal: The Secretary of State for the Home Department; Intervener: Bail for Immigration Detainees
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Judicial Review, Unlawful Detention, Damages, Asylum and Immigration, Case Management
Civil Procedure Immigration Law Public Law Abuse of Process Judicial Review Unlawful Detention Damages Asylum and Immigration +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BA

Claimant and Respondent in the Appeal

BB

Claimant and Respondent in the Appeal

BC

Claimant and Respondent in the Appeal

BD

Claimant and Respondent in the Appeal

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant and Appellant in the Appeal

Bail for Immigration Detainees

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a person refused permission for judicial review of removal directions and detention can bring a fresh civil claim for damages for unlawful detention
  2. 2 Whether the subsequent damages claim constitutes an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

Given the unusual circumstances, including legal aid franchising arrangements and the position of the children, bringing a separate civil claim for damages for unlawful detention after refusal of permission in judicial review was not an abuse of process. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed