Minshall v HM Revenue and Customs & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 741 (16 July 2015)

Minshall v HM Revenue and Customs & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 741 (16 July 2015)

The appellant's claims for restitution and false imprisonment fail because all relevant domestic court orders were valid and conclusive, and the ECtHR judgment did not overturn those orders or create a basis for recovery under domestic law. The principle of res judicata and the rule in Isaacs v Robertson preclude reopening the issues, and payments made under valid court orders are not unjust for the purposes of restitution. Imprisonment pursuant to a valid court order is not actionable as false imprisonment.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 741
Parties
Appellant: Robert Minshall; 1st Respondent: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs; 2nd Respondent: The Crown Prosecution Service (formerly Revenue & Customs Prosecutions Office); 3rd Respondent: Greater London Magistrates' Courts Association Court Funds Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Article 6 ECHR (right to Fair Trial), Res Judicata, Mistake of Law, Enforcement of Court Orders, Damages Under Human Rights Act, False Imprisonment, Unjust Enrichment
Restitution False Imprisonment Human Rights Criminal Law Civil Procedure Confiscation Orders Article 6 ECHR (right to Fair Trial) Res Judicata +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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Minshall

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

1st Respondent

The Crown Prosecution Service (formerly Revenue & Customs Prosecutions Office)

2nd Respondent

Greater London Magistrates' Courts Association Court Funds Office

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a claim for restitution of sums paid under a confiscation order can succeed where the order was validly made and enforced under domestic law, despite a later ECtHR finding of unreasonable delay under Article 6(1) ECHR.
  2. 2 Whether a claim for false imprisonment can succeed where the imprisonment was pursuant to a valid court order.
  3. 3 Whether ECtHR judgments have direct effect on the validity of domestic court orders or create a basis for restitution or false imprisonment claims in domestic law.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's claims for restitution and false imprisonment fail because all relevant domestic court orders were valid and conclusive, and the ECtHR judgment did not overturn those orders or create a basis for recovery under domestic law. The principle of res judicata and the rule in Isaacs v Robertson preclude reopening the issues, and payments made under valid court orders are not unjust for the purposes of restitution. Imprisonment pursuant to a valid court order is not actionable as false imprisonment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant's claim struck out
  • No permission to amend claim to add Human Rights Act damages