A v B

A v B

Section 65 of RIPA does not contain sufficiently clear and explicit words to oust the High Court's jurisdiction over claims by former security service members seeking to publish material; the IPT is not the exclusive forum for such claims, and judicial review remains available.

Parties
Claimant: A; Defendant: B
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Preliminary Issue on Jurisdiction
Outcome
Defendant's preliminary objection to jurisdiction rejected; High Court retains jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Courts, Exclusive Tribunal Jurisdiction, Freedom of Expression, Article 10 ECHR, Official Secrets, Security Services, Judicial Review
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Jurisdiction of Courts Exclusive Tribunal Jurisdiction Freedom of Expression Article 10 ECHR Official Secrets +2 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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Claimant

B

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Preliminary Issue on Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court's jurisdiction is ousted by s.65 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) in claims by former security service members seeking to publish material
  2. 2 Whether the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) is the exclusive forum for such claims, particularly those alleging breach of Article 10 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

Section 65 of RIPA does not contain sufficiently clear and explicit words to oust the High Court's jurisdiction over claims by former security service members seeking to publish material; the IPT is not the exclusive forum for such claims, and judicial review remains available.

Court Disposition

Defendant's preliminary objection to jurisdiction rejected; High Court retains jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Court will consider directions for further progress of the claim, including whether to decline to exercise jurisdiction if so submitted by the defendant.