MTA (a protected party, by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Anor

MTA (a protected party, by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Anor

The application to strike out the claim is dismissed because, on the facts, there is no clear and obvious abuse of process in allowing the claim for damages to proceed without a prior appeal. The findings of lack of capacity and the setting aside of the relevant orders mean there is no risk of inconsistent judgments or re-litigation, and case management considerations support proceeding by Part 7 claim. There is no legal requirement that a claim for damages under section 9(1)(c) HRA 1998 must be preceded by a successful appeal.

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
Civil (human Rights, Damages) / Application to Strike Out Claim (abuse of Process)
Outcome
Application to strike out dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Damages for Judicial Acts, Article 5 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR, Capacity in Litigation, Anti Social Behaviour Injunctions
Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Damages for Judicial Acts Article 5 ECHR Article 6 ECHR Capacity in Litigation Anti Social Behaviour Injunctions

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 14 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

Civil (human Rights, Damages) / Application to Strike Out Claim (abuse of Process)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a claim for damages under section 9(1)(c) of the Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of judicial acts can proceed without first appealing the underlying orders
  2. 2 Whether the claim amounts to an abuse of process by collateral attack or re-litigation
  3. 3 Whether the Lord Chancellor can be liable for damages for judicial acts absent a prior appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The application to strike out the claim is dismissed because, on the facts, there is no clear and obvious abuse of process in allowing the claim for damages to proceed without a prior appeal. The findings of lack of capacity and the setting aside of the relevant orders mean there is no risk of inconsistent judgments or re-litigation, and case management considerations support proceeding by Part 7 claim. There is no legal requirement that a claim for damages under section 9(1)(c) HRA 1998 must be preceded by a successful appeal.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out dismissed

Orders

  • The application to strike out the claim is dismissed.