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, under the CPR regime, the question of abuse of process for not proceeding by judicial review depends on whether the court's processes are being misused in all the circumstances, not on a rigid rule. The claimant's delay and circumstances did not amount to abuse. The Article 4 claim could not be struck out on limitation grounds as there was at least an arguable case for a continuing breach or for an equitable extension of time. The expert report was inadmissible as it was unnecessary and usurped the court's function.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 663 (QB)
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 claims refused; application for permission to rely on expert report refused.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Limitation Periods, False Imprisonment, Article 4 ECHR, Article 5 ECHR, Judicial Review, Expert Evidence
Human Rights Immigration Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Limitation Periods False Imprisonment Article 4 ECHR Article 5 ECHR +2 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 19 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 report of Professor Piotrowicz

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, under the CPR regime, the question of abuse of process for not proceeding by judicial review depends on whether the court's processes are being misused in all the circumstances, not on a rigid rule. The claimant's delay and circumstances did not amount to abuse. The Article 4 claim could not be struck out on limitation grounds as there was at least an arguable case for a continuing breach or for an equitable extension of time. The expert report was inadmissible as it was unnecessary and usurped the court's function.

Court Disposition

Applications to strike out the false imprisonment and Article 4 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.