PP v The Home Office & Anor

PP v The Home Office & Anor

The court held that the false imprisonment claim based on the 27 June 2014 decision is not ipso facto an abuse of process under the CPR regime, as there is no evidence of misuse of process or unfair prejudice. The Article 4 ECHR claim should not be struck out on limitation grounds at this stage, as there is an arguable case for a continuing breach or for an equitable extension of time. The report of Professor Piotrowicz is inadmissible as expert evidence because it is not necessary to assist the court and expresses opinions on the ultimate issue, which is for the court to decide.

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 Claim / Preliminary Issues Determination
Outcome
Preliminary objections dismissed in part; permission to rely on expert report refused.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Limitation Periods, Expert Evidence, False Imprisonment, Article 4 ECHR, Article 5 ECHR
Human Rights Law Immigration Law Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Limitation Periods Expert Evidence False Imprisonment Article 4 ECHR +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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PP

Claimant

The Home Office

Defendant

Secretary of State for Justice

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim / 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 the false imprisonment claim based on the 27 June 2014 decision is not ipso facto an abuse of process under the CPR regime, as there is no evidence of misuse of process or unfair prejudice. The Article 4 ECHR claim should not be struck out on limitation grounds at this stage, as there is an arguable case for a continuing breach or for an equitable extension of time. The report of Professor Piotrowicz is inadmissible as expert evidence because it is not necessary to assist the court and expresses opinions on the ultimate issue, which is for the court to decide.

Court Disposition

Preliminary objections dismissed in part; permission to rely on expert report refused.

Orders

  • The application to strike out the false imprisonment claim based on the 27 June 2014 decision is refused.
  • The application to strike out the Article 4 ECHR claim on limitation grounds is refused.