Mahmood Mansur Eblish v Attorney General

Mahmood Mansur Eblish v Attorney General

The claimant's negligence claim for psychiatric injury is allowed to proceed as reasonable grounds and real prospect of success are pleaded, subject to limitation issues and unless order for property loss particulars. Claims for misfeasance in public office, trespass to goods, trespass to person, and Human Rights Act violations are struck out for failure to plead required mental states, facts, or jurisdictional compliance. Human Rights Act claims must be brought before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, not the court.

Parties
Claimant: Mahmood Mansur Eblish; Defendant: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim / Ruling on Strike Out and Reverse Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Negligence claim for psychiatric injury allowed to proceed; all other claims struck out.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Misfeasance in Public Office, Trespass to Goods, Trespass to Person, Human Rights Act, Limitation, Summary Judgment, Strike Out
Tort Law Human Rights Law Public Law Civil Procedure Negligence Misfeasance in Public Office Trespass to Goods Trespass to Person +4 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 8 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mahmood Mansur Eblish

Claimant

Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim / Ruling on Strike Out and Reverse Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's statement of case discloses reasonable grounds for bringing the claim under CPR 3.4(2)
  2. 2 Whether the claim has a real prospect of success under CPR 24.3
  3. 3 Whether claims in negligence, misfeasance in public office, trespass, and human rights violations are properly pleaded

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's negligence claim for psychiatric injury is allowed to proceed as reasonable grounds and real prospect of success are pleaded, subject to limitation issues and unless order for property loss particulars. Claims for misfeasance in public office, trespass to goods, trespass to person, and Human Rights Act violations are struck out for failure to plead required mental states, facts, or jurisdictional compliance. Human Rights Act claims must be brought before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, not the court.

Court Disposition

Negligence claim for psychiatric injury allowed to proceed; all other claims struck out.

Orders

  • Unless order: Claimant must serve revised particulars of claim for property loss within specified period, setting out knowledge/foreseeability by British Security Services, failing which barred from advancing property claim.
  • Misfeasance in public office, trespass to goods, trespass to person, and Human Rights Act claims struck out.