Adorian v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Adorian v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

The requirement under s.329 Criminal Justice Act 2003 for court permission to bring proceedings is procedural and directory, not mandatory; failure to obtain prior permission does not render proceedings void and the defect can be cured by later application. There was evidence that grossly disproportionate force may have been used, justifying permission to proceed. The normal order for costs should apply to the claimant's application for permission to proceed.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Anthony Adorian; Defendant/appellant: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Defendant's appeal dismissed; claimant's cross-appeal on costs allowed.
Legal Topics
Trespass to the Person, Negligence, Permission to Bring Proceedings, Limitation of Actions, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Tort Law Police Law Trespass to the Person Negligence Permission to Bring Proceedings Limitation of Actions Costs Orders

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Adorian

Claimant/respondent

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to obtain prior permission under s.329 Criminal Justice Act 2003 renders proceedings void or is a procedural defect curable by later application
  2. 2 Whether there was evidence that the police used grossly disproportionate force
  3. 3 Appropriate costs order for application for permission to proceed

Ratio Decidendi

The requirement under s.329 Criminal Justice Act 2003 for court permission to bring proceedings is procedural and directory, not mandatory; failure to obtain prior permission does not render proceedings void and the defect can be cured by later application. There was evidence that grossly disproportionate force may have been used, justifying permission to proceed. The normal order for costs should apply to the claimant's application for permission to proceed.

Court Disposition

Defendant's appeal dismissed; claimant's cross-appeal on costs allowed.

Orders

  • Proceedings may continue despite lack of prior permission under s.329 Criminal Justice Act 2003, subject to permission being granted.
  • Costs of the application for permission to proceed to be claimant’s costs in the case.