MTA v The Lord Chancellor
[2024] EWCA Civ 965
MTA (a protected party, by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Anor
25 January 2023
[2023] EWHC 117 (KB)
High Court
A man with learning disabilities was wrongly arrested because of a court order. Even though the order was later cancelled, the government tried to stop him from suing. The judge said he could sue because the situation was special and an appeal wasn't needed.
Key Facts
- •MTA (Claimant), a protected party with global developmental delay, was subject to an injunction with a power of arrest under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, issued by the County Court in proceedings brought by his landlord.
- •MTA was arrested multiple times for alleged breaches of the injunction, despite his learning difficulties.
- •Subsequent court hearings determined MTA lacked litigation and injunction capacity.
- •The injunction was ultimately set aside as void due to MTA's lack of capacity.
- •MTA brought a claim against the Lord Chancellor for damages under sections 7 and 9 of the Human Rights Act 1998 for breach of Articles 5 and/or 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- •The Lord Chancellor applied to strike out the claim as an abuse of process.
Legal Principles
Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998), sections 7 and 9: Claims against public authorities for breaches of Convention rights, including judicial acts.
HRA 1998
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Articles 5 and 6: Right to liberty and security, and right to a fair trial.
ECHR
Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), Part 3.4(2)(b): Power of the court to strike out a statement of case if it is an abuse of process.
CPR
Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), Rule 21.3(4): Steps taken in litigation before a protected party has a litigation friend are void unless the court orders otherwise.
CPR
Abuse of process: A claim may be struck out if it constitutes an abuse of process, particularly where it amounts to a collateral attack or re-litigation of previously decided matters.
Case law (Mazhar v Lord Chancellor, Municipio De Mariana v BHP Group, Dexter Ltd v Vlieland-Boddy, Arthur JS Hall & Co v Simons)
Judicial immunity: Judges are generally immune from suit for acts done in their judicial capacity.
Case law (Mazhar v Lord Chancellor)
Outcomes
The Lord Chancellor's application to strike out the claim was dismissed.
The court found that the claim for damages was not an abuse of process, as the underlying injunction had been set aside due to the claimant's lack of capacity. The court emphasized the fact-specific nature of abuse of process claims and that a prior appeal wasn't necessarily a prerequisite to a damages claim under section 9(1)(c) of the HRA 1998 in these specific circumstances.