Zubaydah v Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and others

Zubaydah v Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and others

The Supreme Court (majority) held that, on the assumed facts, the connection between the torts and the Six Countries was massively reduced due to the claimant's involuntary presence, the CIA's exclusive control, and the UK Services' indifference to location. Substantial factors connected the torts to England and Wales, including the locus of the UK Services' acts, their official capacity, and the benefit to the UK. It was substantially more appropriate for English law to apply, displacing the general rule under section 11(2)(a) PILA. The appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: Abu Zubaydah (Zayn Al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn); Appellant/defendant: Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; Appellant/defendant: Home Office; Appellant/defendant: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (majority); law of England and Wales applies to the claims against the UK defendants.
Legal Topics
Choice of Law in Tort, Vicarious Liability, Misfeasance in Public Office, Conspiracy, Trespass to the Person, False Imprisonment, Negligence, Extra Territorial Application of Law
Private International Law Tort Law Human Rights Choice of Law in Tort Vicarious Liability Misfeasance in Public Office Conspiracy Trespass to the Person +3 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abu Zubaydah (Zayn Al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn)

Respondent/claimant

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

Appellant/defendant

Home Office

Appellant/defendant

Attorney General

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the applicable law under sections 11 and 12 of the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 for torts allegedly committed by UK security agencies in relation to acts of torture and mistreatment abroad?
  2. 2 Should the general rule under section 11(2)(a) PILA (law of the place where injury was sustained) be displaced under section 12 in favour of English law?
  3. 3 What is the significance of the connection between the torts and the Six Countries versus England and Wales?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court (majority) held that, on the assumed facts, the connection between the torts and the Six Countries was massively reduced due to the claimant's involuntary presence, the CIA's exclusive control, and the UK Services' indifference to location. Substantial factors connected the torts to England and Wales, including the locus of the UK Services' acts, their official capacity, and the benefit to the UK. It was substantially more appropriate for English law to apply, displacing the general rule under section 11(2)(a) PILA. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (majority); law of England and Wales applies to the claims against the UK defendants.

Orders

  • The law applicable to the claimant’s claims against the UK defendants is the law of England and Wales.
  • The appeal by the defendants is dismissed.