Nolan v Parole Board & Anor [2009] EWHC 3856 (Admin) (14 July 2009)

Nolan v Parole Board & Anor [2009] EWHC 3856 (Admin) (14 July 2009)

The application to amend the claim was refused because there was no realistic prospect of success: the Parole Board's decision of 20 October 2008 did not direct release under section 247, so the Secretary of State was not obliged to release the claimant. The basis for a damages claim for the period after 29 January 2009 was not properly formulated. The claim for false imprisonment added nothing to the Article 5 claim and was not appropriate for amendment in these proceedings.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 3856 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Nolan; First Defendant: Parole Board; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application to Amend Claim After Substantive Relief Became Academic Due to Claimant's Release
Outcome
Application to amend refused; claim as originally formulated succeeds against first defendant, fails against second defendant; costs orders made.
Legal Topics
Parole, False Imprisonment, Article 5 ECHR, Damages, Judicial Review Procedure
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law Parole False Imprisonment Article 5 ECHR Damages Judicial Review Procedure

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nolan

Claimant

Parole Board

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Justice

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application to Amend Claim After Substantive Relief Became Academic Due to Claimant's Release

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to permit amendment of claim to include damages for false imprisonment and breach of Article 5 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether Parole Board's decision of 20 October 2008 directed release under section 247 Criminal Justice Act 2003
  3. 3 Whether claim for damages or false imprisonment has a realistic prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The application to amend the claim was refused because there was no realistic prospect of success: the Parole Board's decision of 20 October 2008 did not direct release under section 247, so the Secretary of State was not obliged to release the claimant. The basis for a damages claim for the period after 29 January 2009 was not properly formulated. The claim for false imprisonment added nothing to the Article 5 claim and was not appropriate for amendment in these proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application to amend refused; claim as originally formulated succeeds against first defendant, fails against second defendant; costs orders made.

Orders

  • No order as to costs between claimant and second defendant.
  • First defendant to pay claimant's costs up to and including 8 July 2009, to be assessed if not agreed.