RMJ (a Protected Party) (by the Official Solicitor acting as his litigation friend) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Spencer |
| Judgment Date | 24 June 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 2048 (QB) |
| Date | 24 June 2014 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ12X03711 |
[2014] EWHC 2048 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Combined Court Centre
Crown Court
St Aldates
Oxford
OX1 1TL
The Honourable Mr Justice Spencer
Case No: HQ12X03711
Greg Ó Ceallaigh (instructed by Wilson Solicitors LLP) for the Claimant
Denis Edwards (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 8th, 9th, 12th May 2014
Judgment on ancillary issues
I handed down my reserved judgment in this case on 11th June 2014 at Oxford Crown Court. Counsel did not attend. From an exchange of e-mails that day, shortly before judgment was handed down, it was clear that counsel were unable to agree all ancillary matters. I therefore indicated that I would consider any further written submissions before reaching my decision on those matters. I have considered further written submissions from Mr Edwards on behalf of the defendant and from Mr Ó Ceallaigh on behalf of the claimant, both dated 16th June 2014. This is my decision.
Nominal damages
The first issue is the quantum of nominal damages. It was agreed at the hearing that the claimant was in any event entitled to nominal damages in respect of the first period of detention which was conceded to have been technically unlawful. Mr Edwards submits that nominal damages means the sum of £1. Mr Ó Ceallaigh submits that nominal damages in this case should be £1,000. He suggests that a range of £500—
£1,000 was considered appropriate by the Supreme Court in Lumba [2011] UKSC 12, [2012] 1 AC 245, and that as that case was decided 3 years ago, £1,000 is a fair figure, allowing for inflation.
The traditional view is that nominal damages means "a sum of money that may be spoken of, but has no existence in point of quantity": see Maule J in Beaumont v Greathead (1846) 2 C.B. 494 at 499, and see McGregor on Damages (18th Edition, 2009) at paragraph 10–006 (page 415). I note that in Lumba the actual decision of the Supreme Court, by a majority, was that the claimants should be awarded nominal damages assessed at £1, as appears from the very end of the report at [2012] 1 AC 245, at page 360. Although some members of the Court in the minority (Hope, Walker and Hale SCJJ) thought that modest substantive damages should be awarded, ranging from £500 to £1,000, this was distinguished from an award of nominal damages, favoured by the majority. In other words, no-one was suggesting that nominal damages, if properly awarded, meant anything other than £1. My decision in this case was that only nominal damages are payable, and this was common ground if the rest of the claim failed.
Consistent with my approach, in the third supplement to McGregor (2012) at page 63, reference is made to further cases in which nominal damages of £1 have been awarded in cases such as this: R (OM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 909 (at paragraph 57), and R (Moussaoui) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 126 (Admin), paragraph 194.
In R (OM) Richards LJ said, at paragraph 57:
"For the reasons given above, however, I am satisfied that the tort has caused the appellant no loss, since she would and could have been detained in any event in the lawful exercise of the power of detention. I would therefore award her only nominal damages, in the sum of £1."
In my judgment that is exactly the position in the present case. I award the claimant nominal damages of £1 in respect of the first period of detention.
Costs
The second issue is costs. Mr Ó Ceallaigh...
To continue reading
Request your trial