Johnston v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police

Johnston v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police

The claimant's case is not frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process and has a real prospect of success; the short delay in bringing the assault claim was caused by procedural errors of legal advisers, not the claimant, and causes no prejudice to the defendant; therefore, leave is granted under section 139 and the limitation period is dis-applied under section 33.

Parties
Proposed Claimant: David Johnston; Proposed Defendant: The Chief Constable of Merseyside Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Bring Civil Proceedings / Ruling on Application for Leave and Limitation Extension
Outcome
application granted
Legal Topics
Assault, False Imprisonment, Limitation Period, Leave to Bring Proceedings, Mental Health Act Section 139, Limitation Act Section 33
Civil Procedure Tort Mental Health Law Assault False Imprisonment Limitation Period Leave to Bring Proceedings Mental Health Act Section 139 +1 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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Johnston

Proposed Claimant

The Chief Constable of Merseyside Police

Proposed Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Bring Civil Proceedings / Ruling on Application for Leave and Limitation Extension

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate test for permission under section 139(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983?
  2. 2 Has the claimant satisfied the test for leave to bring proceedings?
  3. 3 Should the limitation period under section 11 of the Limitation Act 1980 be dis-applied for the assault claim?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's case is not frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process and has a real prospect of success; the short delay in bringing the assault claim was caused by procedural errors of legal advisers, not the claimant, and causes no prejudice to the defendant; therefore, leave is granted under section 139 and the limitation period is dis-applied under section 33.

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • Leave granted to bring civil proceedings under section 139 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
  • Limitation period under section 11 of the Limitation Act 1980 dis-applied for the assault claim.