Begg v HM Treasury [2015] EWHC 1851 (Admin) (29 June 2015)

Begg v HM Treasury [2015] EWHC 1851 (Admin) (29 June 2015)

A protective costs order may, in principle, be appropriate in cases where individuals are accused of terrorism and closed material is relied upon, rendering it impossible to assess the merits. However, such an order should only be made subject to strict conditions, including real benefit to the individual, inability to assess prospects due to closed material, fairness having regard to financial resources, likelihood of discontinuance without the order, and absence of unreasonable conduct. In this case, the application is premature as the necessary conditions have not yet been satisfied or evidenced.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 1851 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Moazzam Begg; Defendant/respondent: HM Treasury
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Protective Costs Order in Asset Freezing Appeal / Interlocutory Application Prior to Substantive Appeal Hearing
Outcome
Application for protective costs order adjourned as premature; no order made at this stage.
Legal Topics
Protective Costs Orders, Closed Material Procedures, Asset Freezing, Access to Justice
Public Law Administrative Law Costs Protective Costs Orders Closed Material Procedures Asset Freezing Access to Justice

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moazzam Begg

Claimant/appellant

HM Treasury

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Protective Costs Order in Asset Freezing Appeal / Interlocutory Application Prior to Substantive Appeal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a protective costs order should be granted in an appeal against a designation under the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 where closed material is relied upon by the state.

Ratio Decidendi

A protective costs order may, in principle, be appropriate in cases where individuals are accused of terrorism and closed material is relied upon, rendering it impossible to assess the merits. However, such an order should only be made subject to strict conditions, including real benefit to the individual, inability to assess prospects due to closed material, fairness having regard to financial resources, likelihood of discontinuance without the order, and absence of unreasonable conduct. In this case, the application is premature as the necessary conditions have not yet been satisfied or evidenced.

Court Disposition

Application for protective costs order adjourned as premature; no order made at this stage.

Orders

  • Application for protective costs order is premature and adjourned; appellant to provide evidence of means and impact; HM Treasury to serve evidence including any gisting of closed material before reconsideration.