Begg v HM Treasury

Begg v HM Treasury

A protective costs order may, in principle, be appropriate in cases where individuals are accused of terrorism and closed material prevents them from assessing the merits, but strict conditions must be satisfied. In this case, it is premature to grant a PCO as the appellant has not yet provided sufficient evidence of real benefit, inability to assess prospects, and financial means.

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 (pco) Under Terrorist Asset Freezing Etc. Act 2010 / Ruling on Application for PCO Prior to Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Application for protective costs order dismissed as premature; may be reconsidered upon further evidence.
Legal Topics
Protective Costs Orders, Closed Material Procedures, Asset Freezing, Access to Justice
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Anti Terrorism Law 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 4 Authorities cited 19 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 (pco) Under Terrorist Asset Freezing Etc. Act 2010 / Ruling on Application for PCO Prior to Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a protective costs order should be granted in a closed material procedure appeal under TAFA
  2. 2 Whether the appellant can fairly assess the prospects of success given reliance on closed material
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's means and risk of adverse costs justify a PCO

Ratio Decidendi

A protective costs order may, in principle, be appropriate in cases where individuals are accused of terrorism and closed material prevents them from assessing the merits, but strict conditions must be satisfied. In this case, it is premature to grant a PCO as the appellant has not yet provided sufficient evidence of real benefit, inability to assess prospects, and financial means.

Court Disposition

Application for protective costs order dismissed as premature; may be reconsidered upon further evidence.