PP v The Home Office & Anor [2017] EWHC 663 (QB) (30 March 2017)

PP v The Home Office & Anor [2017] EWHC 663 (QB) (30 March 2017)

The court held that the false imprisonment claim based on the 27 June 2014 decision was not ipso facto an abuse of process, as the CPR regime requires a holistic assessment of whether the court's processes are being misused, not a rigid application of procedural exclusivity. The Article 4 ECHR claim should not be struck out on limitation grounds because there is at least an arguable case for a continuing breach or for an equitable extension of time. The expert report of Professor Piotrowicz is inadmissible as it is not necessary to assist the court and expresses opinions on the ultimate issue, which is for the court to decide.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 663
Parties
Claimant: PP; Defendant: The Home Office; Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil (queen's Bench Division) / Preliminary Issues Determination
Outcome
Applications to strike out the false imprisonment and Article 4 ECHR claims refused; application for permission to rely on expert report refused.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, False Imprisonment, Limitation Periods, Expert Evidence, Human Trafficking, Article 4 ECHR, Article 5 ECHR, Judicial Review, Investigative Duty
Human Rights Immigration Tort Abuse of Process False Imprisonment Limitation Periods Expert Evidence Human Trafficking +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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PP

Claimant

The Home Office

Defendant

Secretary of State for Justice

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (queen's Bench Division) / Preliminary Issues Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the false imprisonment claim is an abuse of process for not being brought by judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Article 4 ECHR claim should be struck out on limitation grounds
  3. 3 Whether the claimant should have permission to rely on the expert report of Professor Piotrowicz

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the false imprisonment claim based on the 27 June 2014 decision was not ipso facto an abuse of process, as the CPR regime requires a holistic assessment of whether the court's processes are being misused, not a rigid application of procedural exclusivity. The Article 4 ECHR claim should not be struck out on limitation grounds because there is at least an arguable case for a continuing breach or for an equitable extension of time. The expert report of Professor Piotrowicz is inadmissible as it is not necessary to assist the court and expresses opinions on the ultimate issue, which is for the court to decide.

Court Disposition

Applications to strike out the false imprisonment and Article 4 ECHR claims refused; application for permission to rely on expert report refused.

Orders

  • False imprisonment claim based on the 27 June 2014 decision not struck out as abuse of process.
  • Article 4 ECHR claim not struck out on limitation grounds.