MTA v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Anor [2023] EWHC 117 (KB) (25 January 2023)

MTA v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Anor [2023] EWHC 117 (KB) (25 January 2023)

The claim for damages under s.9(1)(c) HRA 1998 is not an abuse of process in this case because the underlying orders have already been set aside due to lack of capacity, there is no risk of inconsistent decisions or re-litigation, and case management considerations favour allowing the claim to proceed. There is no blanket requirement for a prior appeal or judicial review before such a claim can be brought.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 117 (KB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: MTA (a protected party, by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor); First Defendant: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; Second Defendant/applicant: The Lord Chancellor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 January 2023
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Claim (king's Bench Division) / Application to Strike Out Claim as Abuse of Process
Outcome
Application to strike out the claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Damages for Judicial Acts, Human Rights Act 1998 S.7 and S.9, Article 5 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR, Capacity in Civil Proceedings
Civil Procedure Human Rights Abuse of Process Damages for Judicial Acts Human Rights Act 1998 S.7 and S.9 Article 5 ECHR Article 6 ECHR Capacity in Civil Proceedings

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MTA (a protected party, by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor)

Claimant/respondent

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

First Defendant

The Lord Chancellor

Second Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Claim (king's Bench Division) / Application to Strike Out Claim as Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a claim for damages under s.9(1)(c) HRA 1998 for breach of Articles 5 and/or 6 ECHR by judicial acts can proceed without first appealing the underlying orders;
  2. 2 Whether the claim amounts to an abuse of process in the absence of an appeal or judicial review;
  3. 3 Whether the facts of the case justify striking out the claim as an abuse of process.

Ratio Decidendi

The claim for damages under s.9(1)(c) HRA 1998 is not an abuse of process in this case because the underlying orders have already been set aside due to lack of capacity, there is no risk of inconsistent decisions or re-litigation, and case management considerations favour allowing the claim to proceed. There is no blanket requirement for a prior appeal or judicial review before such a claim can be brought.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out the claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim for damages under s.9(1)(c) HRA 1998 may proceed.