Begg v HM Treasury

Begg v HM Treasury

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge erred in finding it premature to grant a PCO before disclosure/gisting of closed material, as the existence of closed evidence made it impossible for the appellant to assess prospects of success, and the matter should be remitted for reconsideration of whether the strict conditions for a PCO are satisfied.

Parties
Appellant: Begg; Respondent: HM Treasury
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter remitted to High Court for reconsideration.
Legal Topics
Protective Costs Orders, Closed Material Procedures, Asset Freezing, Terrorism Designation, Costs Protection, European Convention on Human Rights
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Protective Costs Orders Closed Material Procedures Asset Freezing Terrorism Designation Costs Protection +1 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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Begg

Appellant

HM Treasury

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a protective costs order (PCO) should be granted in cases involving closed material procedures (CMPs) where the appellant cannot assess prospects of success
  2. 2 Whether the High Court judge erred in finding it premature to grant a PCO before disclosure/gisting of closed material
  3. 3 Whether costs protection should be limited to public interest litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge erred in finding it premature to grant a PCO before disclosure/gisting of closed material, as the existence of closed evidence made it impossible for the appellant to assess prospects of success, and the matter should be remitted for reconsideration of whether the strict conditions for a PCO are satisfied.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter remitted to High Court for reconsideration.

Orders

  • The question of whether conditions 1, 3, and 4 for a protective costs order are satisfied is remitted to the High Court for reconsideration.