LL v The Lord Chancellor [2017] EWCA Civ 237 (10 April 2017)

LL v The Lord Chancellor [2017] EWCA Civ 237 (10 April 2017)

The procedural errors by the High Court judge, though serious, did not amount to 'gross and obvious irregularity' or a 'flagrant denial of justice' as required by domestic and Strasbourg authorities for damages under section 9 HRA and Article 5 ECHR. The threshold for liability is high and was not met on the facts; LL's remedy was limited to appeal and release, not compensation.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Civ 237
Parties
Appellant / Claimant: LL; Respondent / Defendant: The Lord Chancellor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Immunity, Contempt of Court, Unlawful Detention, Damages Under Human Rights Act, Procedural Irregularity, Article 5 ECHR, Recusal for Bias
Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Family Law Judicial Immunity Contempt of Court Unlawful Detention Damages Under Human Rights Act Procedural Irregularity +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 3 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LL

Appellant / Claimant

The Lord Chancellor

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether procedural errors by a High Court judge amounted to 'gross and obvious irregularity' justifying damages under section 9 of the Human Rights Act 1998
  2. 2 Whether the Lord Chancellor is liable for damages for unlawful imprisonment following quashed committal for contempt
  3. 3 Proper threshold for liability under Article 5 ECHR in cases of judicial error

Ratio Decidendi

The procedural errors by the High Court judge, though serious, did not amount to 'gross and obvious irregularity' or a 'flagrant denial of justice' as required by domestic and Strasbourg authorities for damages under section 9 HRA and Article 5 ECHR. The threshold for liability is high and was not met on the facts; LL's remedy was limited to appeal and release, not compensation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No damages awarded to LL
  • No declaration of unlawful detention against the Lord Chancellor