Franklin Awodiya & Ors v Ministry of Justice

Claims against the Ministry of Justice for acts of judges or court staff cannot bypass judicial immunity or section 2(5) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. The Crown has no vicarious liability for judicial acts where the judge has no personal civil liability.

Vicarious liability for an independent contractor requires a relationship with the defendant that is employment or akin to employment. Procedural rules cannot displace substantive immunity or statutory protection. Claims lacking particulars, evidence, a recognised cause of action or necessary medical evidence may be struck out under CPR r.3.4(2)(a).

The claim comprised two proceedings brought by members of the Awodiya family against the Ministry of Justice. The allegations concerned decisions and conduct of judges, court staff and a security guard at Leeds County Court, including discrimination, human-rights breaches, misfeasance, data-protection breaches, forgery and personal injury.

The defendant sought strike-out or summary judgment. The claimants sought summary judgment. The central issues were whether the pleaded claims disclosed reasonable grounds, whether the Ministry could be vicariously liable for judicial acts or the conduct of a G4S security guard, and whether the claims were supported by sufficient particulars and evidence.

1. The court struck out both claims, including the composite claim, under CPR r.3.4(2)(a), because the statements of case disclosed no reasonable grounds and no legally recognisable claim. Each claim was totally without merit. The claimants’ summary-judgment application was dismissed as totally without merit.

2. Persons exercising judicial functions have immunity from personal civil liability for acts or words done or said in their judicial capacity. Section 2(5) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 excludes proceedings against the Crown for judicial responsibilities or the execution of judicial process. The Ministry therefore had neither direct nor vicarious liability for the alleged judicial wrongs. The overriding objective could not displace substantive law or statute.

3. The G4S security guard was employed by G4S, not the Ministry. The relationship was not employment or akin to employment, and the guard acted on behalf of G4S. The Ministry was therefore not vicariously liable for an independent contractor.

4. The claims against court staff were insufficiently particularised and unsupported by evidence. The Human Rights Act 1998 claims lacked sufficient particulars and evidence of an unlawful act under section 6(1). The personal-injury claims lacked medical evidence and would in any event fail through judicial immunity. The children had no discrete cause of action.

5. Sirros v Moore was followed on judicial immunity. Cox v Ministry of Justice was explained as concerning a relationship akin to employment. Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc, Lloyd v Grace Smith & Co and Lister v Helsey Hall Ltd were distinguished.