Hinds v Liverpool County Court & Ors [2008] EWHC 665 (QB) (11 April 2008)

Hinds v Liverpool County Court & Ors [2008] EWHC 665 (QB) (11 April 2008)

All claims are struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action: judicial and witness immunity bar claims against the court, CAFCASS, and Dr Tully; no actionable negligence or breach of statutory duty is established against the council or police; Human Rights Act claims are not maintainable in these circumstances; and any defamation claims are time-barred.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 665 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Anthony Dominique Hinds; First Defendant: Liverpool County Court; Second Defendant: Liverpool City Council; Third Defendant: CAFCASS; Fourth Defendant: The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester; Fifth Defendant: Dr. Brian Tully
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil (queen's Bench Division) / Application to Strike Out and for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claim struck out in its entirety against all defendants.
Legal Topics
Judicial Immunity, Witness Immunity, Negligence, Defamation, Human Rights Act 1998, Children Act 1989, Limitation of Actions
Civil Procedure Family Law Human Rights Judicial Immunity Witness Immunity Negligence Defamation Human Rights Act 1998 +2 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Dominique Hinds

Claimant

Liverpool County Court

First Defendant

Liverpool City Council

Second Defendant

CAFCASS

Third Defendant

The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester

Fourth Defendant

Dr. Brian Tully

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (queen's Bench Division) / Application to Strike Out and for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant can maintain claims in negligence, defamation, and under the Human Rights Act 1998 against the named defendants arising from care and adoption proceedings involving his children.
  2. 2 Whether judicial and witness immunity bar the claims against the court, CAFCASS, and Dr Tully.
  3. 3 Whether the claims are time-barred or otherwise not actionable.

Ratio Decidendi

All claims are struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action: judicial and witness immunity bar claims against the court, CAFCASS, and Dr Tully; no actionable negligence or breach of statutory duty is established against the council or police; Human Rights Act claims are not maintainable in these circumstances; and any defamation claims are time-barred.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out in its entirety against all defendants.

Orders

  • All claims against all defendants are struck out.
  • No permission to amend granted.