Dunn v Parole Board

Dunn v Parole Board

Limitation under s.7(5) HRA is not a jurisdictional bar and may be raised as a defence outside CPR Part 11; delay by the Parole Board in reviewing recall does not render detention unlawful for the purposes of a false imprisonment claim where detention is pursuant to statutory authority; the delay in bringing the HRA claim was excessive and prejudicial, and it is not equitable to extend time.

Parties
Appellant: Peter David Dunn; Respondent: The Parole Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Norwich County Court Decision Striking Out Claims
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, False Imprisonment, Parole Board Procedures, Article 5 ECHR, Extension of Time, Civil Procedure Rules
Human Rights Law Criminal Law Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions False Imprisonment Parole Board Procedures Article 5 ECHR Extension of Time +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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter David Dunn

Appellant

The Parole Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Norwich County Court Decision Striking Out Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CPR Part 11 precluded the Parole Board from raising limitation under s.7(5) HRA
  2. 2 Whether a claim for false imprisonment lies against the Parole Board for delay in review
  3. 3 Whether the court should extend time for bringing a Human Rights Act claim

Ratio Decidendi

Limitation under s.7(5) HRA is not a jurisdictional bar and may be raised as a defence outside CPR Part 11; delay by the Parole Board in reviewing recall does not render detention unlawful for the purposes of a false imprisonment claim where detention is pursuant to statutory authority; the delay in bringing the HRA claim was excessive and prejudicial, and it is not equitable to extend time.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed on all grounds.
  • No extension of time for bringing the Human Rights Act claim is granted.