Nolan v Parole Board & Anor

Nolan v Parole Board & Anor

The application to amend the claim was refused because there was no realistic prospect of success for damages claims against either defendant; the Parole Board's decision of 20 October 2008 did not relate to release from the second sentence, and the basis for damages following the 29 January 2009 decision was not properly formulated.

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 / Judgment on Application to Amend Claim
Outcome
Application to amend claim refused; claim against first defendant succeeded, claim against second defendant failed.
Legal Topics
False Imprisonment, Article 5 ECHR, Extended Sentence, Parole, Amendment of Pleadings
Criminal Law Public Law Human Rights False Imprisonment Article 5 ECHR Extended Sentence Parole Amendment of Pleadings

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 4 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 / Judgment on Application to Amend Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to amend the claim to seek damages for false imprisonment and breach of Article 5 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the Parole Board's decision of 29 January 2009 was unlawful
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to damages for alleged unlawful detention after 27 October 2008

Ratio Decidendi

The application to amend the claim was refused because there was no realistic prospect of success for damages claims against either defendant; the Parole Board's decision of 20 October 2008 did not relate to release from the second sentence, and the basis for damages following the 29 January 2009 decision was not properly formulated.

Court Disposition

Application to amend claim refused; claim against first defendant succeeded, claim against second defendant failed.

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 taxed on the standard basis if not agreed.