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 because the foreign states are not parties to the action, nor are their agents or officials, and their legal interests are not directly affected. The act of state doctrine does not bar the claims at this stage, as the court is not being asked to adjudicate on the legal effectiveness of foreign sovereign acts, but rather on the alleged joint liability of UK officials. The public policy exception to the act of state doctrine is not engaged on the facts as pleaded, but the doctrine requires judicial restraint, not abstention, where there is room for doubt.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 4111 (QB)
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 (tort) / Preliminary Issues Determination
Outcome
Claims not dismissed; Defendants' application to strike out on grounds of state immunity and act of state doctrine rejected.
Legal Topics
State Immunity, Act of State Doctrine, Rendition, Torture, False Imprisonment, Conspiracy, Misfeasance in Public Office
Public International Law Tort Law Human Rights Law State Immunity Act of State Doctrine Rendition Torture False Imprisonment +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 14 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 (tort) / Preliminary Issues Determination

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The claims are not barred by state immunity because the foreign states are not parties to the action, nor are their agents or officials, and their legal interests are not directly affected. The act of state doctrine does not bar the claims at this stage, as the court is not being asked to adjudicate on the legal effectiveness of foreign sovereign acts, but rather on the alleged joint liability of UK officials. The public policy exception to the act of state doctrine is not engaged on the facts as pleaded, but the doctrine requires judicial restraint, not abstention, where there is room for doubt.

Court Disposition

Claims not dismissed; Defendants' application to strike out on grounds of state immunity and act of state doctrine rejected.

Orders

  • Proceedings to continue to substantive determination of claims.
  • Applicable law for causes of action to be determined at later stage.