Branch & Ors v Department for Constitutional Affairs

Proceedings under Human Rights Act 1998 cannot be used as a collateral attack on judicial decisions made in other proceedings. A complaint concerning a judicial act must be pursued through the available appeal procedure, judicial review, or another prescribed route under section 9. Where an appeal route exists, a claimant cannot recast the complaint as an action for breach of section 6. A statement of case advancing such claims discloses no reasonable grounds and may be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a).

The claimants brought proceedings against the Department for Constitutional Affairs under sections 6 to 9 of the Human Rights Act 1998. They alleged that the Department and the courts had unlawfully affected various proceedings, breached Convention rights, discriminated against them and imposed wrongful decisions and costs liabilities.

The defendant applied under CPR 3.4(2)(a) to strike out the particulars of claim. The claim concerned alleged conduct and decisions in earlier proceedings, including orders and judgments of judges and court officers. The central issue was whether those complaints could properly be pursued as a collateral human-rights claim against the Department.

1. The application was granted. The statement of case disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing any of the claims and was struck out in its entirety.

2. Section 9 of the Human Rights Act 1998 governed complaints concerning judicial acts. Such complaints could be pursued, if at all, by appeal, judicial review, or another prescribed forum. The claimants could not challenge orders and judgments of masters, county court judges, or other judicial decision-makers by bringing a separate action against the Department.

3. The existence of appeal procedures meant that the claimants had access to justice. If the appeals failed, the Convention neither required nor permitted a collateral attack on those decisions through proceedings alleging breach of section 6.

4. The court also accepted that section 2(5) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 barred proceedings against the Crown in respect of matters done or omitted while discharging, or purporting to discharge, responsibilities of a judicial nature or responsibilities connected with executing judicial process.

5. Complaints about non-judicial court-service conduct did not assist the claimants. The authorities relied on by the defendant supported the availability of ordinary remedies and the procedural nature of summary determination. The pleaded allegations were alternatively unsupported, incoherent, or incapable of establishing a cause of action against this defendant.