Belhaj & Anor v Straw & Ors [2013] EWHC 4111 (QB) (20 December 2013)

Belhaj & Anor v Straw & Ors [2013] EWHC 4111 (QB) (20 December 2013)

The claims are not barred by state immunity as the foreign states are not directly or indirectly impleaded; their rights and interests are not obviously affected in the sense required by the doctrine. The act of state doctrine does not bar the claims, as the court is not asked to adjudicate on the legal effectiveness of foreign sovereign acts, but only to make factual findings about conduct. Public policy exception is not engaged at this stage as there is no plain and undisputed breach of international law established prior to proceedings. The claims may proceed to determination of applicable laws and merits.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 4111
Parties
Claimant: Abdul-Hakim Belhaj; Claimant: Fatima Boudchar; Defendant: Rt. Hon. Jack Straw MP; Defendant: Sir Mark Allen CMG; Defendant: The Secret Intelligence Service; Defendant: The Security Service; Defendant: The Attorney General; Defendant: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Defendant: The Home Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Preliminary Issues Determination
Outcome
Claims not dismissed; preliminary issues determined in favour of Claimants.
Legal Topics
State Immunity, Act of State Doctrine, Rendition, False Imprisonment, Conspiracy, Misfeasance in Public Office, Torture, Accessory Liability
Tort Public International Law Human Rights Public Law State Immunity Act of State Doctrine Rendition False Imprisonment +4 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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul-Hakim Belhaj

Claimant

Fatima Boudchar

Claimant

Rt. Hon. Jack Straw MP

Defendant

Sir Mark Allen CMG

Defendant

The Secret Intelligence Service

Defendant

The Security Service

Defendant

The Attorney General

Defendant

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Defendant

The Home Office

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Preliminary Issues Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or non-justiciability under state immunity and act of state doctrines
  2. 2 What are the applicable laws for determining the causes of action

Ratio Decidendi

The claims are not barred by state immunity as the foreign states are not directly or indirectly impleaded; their rights and interests are not obviously affected in the sense required by the doctrine. The act of state doctrine does not bar the claims, as the court is not asked to adjudicate on the legal effectiveness of foreign sovereign acts, but only to make factual findings about conduct. Public policy exception is not engaged at this stage as there is no plain and undisputed breach of international law established prior to proceedings. The claims may proceed to determination of applicable laws and merits.

Court Disposition

Claims not dismissed; preliminary issues determined in favour of Claimants.

Orders

  • Court rejects Defendants' arguments that state immunity and act of state doctrines bar the claims.
  • Court to proceed to determination of applicable laws for causes of action.