Ahmad v London Borough of Brent & Ors [2011] EWHC 80 (QB) (26 January 2011)

Ahmad v London Borough of Brent & Ors [2011] EWHC 80 (QB) (26 January 2011)

With the exception of the claim against the Third Defendant for the period 24-31 August 2007, there are no reasonable grounds or real prospect of success for any of the claims against any of the defendants. The First Defendant owed no duty of care to the claimant; the Second Defendant's actions were reasonable; the recall and detention were lawful; there was no actionable misfeasance or breach of Articles 5 or 8 ECHR; and the Parole Board acted with due diligence given the circumstances.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 80 (QB)
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 (judicial Review / Damages) / Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications; Application to Amend Claim
Outcome
All claims against the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Defendants struck out except for the claim against the Third Defendant relating to the period 24-31 August 2007, which may proceed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Misfeasance in Public Office, False Imprisonment, Article 5 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Parole/recall Procedures
Public Law Human Rights Tort Law Criminal Justice Negligence Misfeasance in Public Office False Imprisonment Article 5 ECHR +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 Amounts and remedies 1
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 (judicial Review / Damages) / Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications; Application to Amend Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants owed the claimant a duty of care in negligence
  2. 2 Whether there was misfeasance in public office by the defendants
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's recall and detention were unlawful (false imprisonment)

Ratio Decidendi

With the exception of the claim against the Third Defendant for the period 24-31 August 2007, there are no reasonable grounds or real prospect of success for any of the claims against any of the defendants. The First Defendant owed no duty of care to the claimant; the Second Defendant's actions were reasonable; the recall and detention were lawful; there was no actionable misfeasance or breach of Articles 5 or 8 ECHR; and the Parole Board acted with due diligence given the circumstances.

Court Disposition

All claims against the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Defendants struck out except for the claim against the Third Defendant relating to the period 24-31 August 2007, which may proceed.

Orders

  • Claimant's application to re-amend the Claim Form and for extension of time under HRA s.7 in respect of Article 8 claims against First and Third Defendants allowed.
  • Claimant's application to amend Particulars of Claim allowed except for new negligence claim against Third Defendant, which is adjourned for 21 days.