Ahmad v London Borough of Brent & Ors

Ahmad v London Borough of Brent & Ors

With the exception of the claim against the Third Defendant for the period 24-31 August 2007, there are no reasonable grounds for any of the claims against any Defendant and none have any real prospect of success. The recall and detention were lawful, no duty of care was owed by the First Defendant, no misfeasance or breach of Article 5 or Article 8 was established, and the Parole Board acted with due diligence.

Parties
Claimant: Almas Ahmad; First Defendant: London Borough of Brent; Second Defendant: National Probation Service (London); Third Defendant: Ministry of Justice; Fourth Defendant: Parole Board for England and Wales
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications
Outcome
All claims against the Defendants struck out except for the claim against the Third Defendant for the period 24-31 August 2007.
Legal Topics
False Imprisonment, Negligence, Misfeasance in Public Office, Article 5 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Duty of Care, Recall of Prisoner, Parole Board Procedure
Public Law Human Rights Tort Law Criminal Law False Imprisonment Negligence Misfeasance in Public Office Article 5 ECHR +4 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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Almas Ahmad

Claimant

London Borough of Brent

First Defendant

National Probation Service (London)

Second Defendant

Ministry of Justice

Third Defendant

Parole Board for England and Wales

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the recall and detention of the Claimant was wrongful and unlawful
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants owed a duty of care to the Claimant
  3. 3 Whether there was misfeasance in public office

Ratio Decidendi

With the exception of the claim against the Third Defendant for the period 24-31 August 2007, there are no reasonable grounds for any of the claims against any Defendant and none have any real prospect of success. The recall and detention were lawful, no duty of care was owed by the First Defendant, no misfeasance or breach of Article 5 or Article 8 was established, and the Parole Board acted with due diligence.

Court Disposition

All claims against the Defendants struck out except for the claim against the Third Defendant for the period 24-31 August 2007.

Orders

  • Claimant's application to re-amend the Claim Form and for extension of time under HRA s.7 allowed.
  • Claimant's application to amend Particulars of Claim allowed except for negligence against Third Defendant, which is adjourned for 21 days.