Begg v HM Treasury [2016] EWCA Civ 568 (23 June 2016)

Begg v HM Treasury [2016] EWCA Civ 568 (23 June 2016)

The High Court judge erred in holding it was premature to consider whether to grant a PCO before the Treasury served its evidence. Where closed material prevents assessment of prospects, and open material suggests a reasonable case, the court should consider granting a PCO at the outset, subject to satisfaction of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 568
Parties
Appellant: Begg; Respondent: HM Treasury
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (administrative Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Protective Costs Orders, Closed Material Procedures, Asset Freezing, Costs in Litigation, Human Rights
Public Law Civil Procedure Protective Costs Orders Closed Material Procedures Asset Freezing Costs in Litigation Human Rights

Source-derived case record

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Begg

Appellant

HM Treasury

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (administrative Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a protective costs order (PCO) should be granted in cases involving closed material procedures where the appellant cannot assess prospects of success due to reliance on closed evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court judge erred in holding it was premature to grant a PCO before service of the Treasury's evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court judge erred in holding it was premature to consider whether to grant a PCO before the Treasury served its evidence. Where closed material prevents assessment of prospects, and open material suggests a reasonable case, the court should consider granting a PCO at the outset, subject to satisfaction of the other strict conditions. The matter is remitted to the High Court to determine if those conditions are met.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Matter remitted to the High Court for reconsideration of whether conditions 1, 3, and 4 for a PCO are satisfied.