K & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Defence & Ors

K & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Defence & Ors

The claimants' public law claims are weak and do not demonstrate a real prospect of success at trial; claimants do not fall within the relevant government policy for LES, and the relationship with British authorities does not establish jurisdiction for ECHR protection; mandatory injunction is not appropriate given the lack of serious issue to be tried and balance of convenience does not favour interim relief.

Parties
Claimant: The Queen on the application of K and others; Defendant: Secretary of State for Defence; Defendant: Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Affairs; Defendant: HM Attorney General
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Interim Relief
Outcome
Application for interim relief refused
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Duty of Care, Contractual Obligations, Misrepresentation, European Convention on Human Rights, Government Policy, Crown Proceedings
Public Law Private Law Human Rights Interim Injunctions Duty of Care Contractual Obligations Misrepresentation European Convention on Human Rights +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen on the application of K and others

Claimant

Secretary of State for Defence

Defendant

Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Affairs

Defendant

HM Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are entitled to interim relief for secure accommodation and living expenses in Afghanistan
  2. 2 Whether claimants fall within government policy for locally employed staff (LES)
  3. 3 Whether claimants are owed protection under public or private law

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' public law claims are weak and do not demonstrate a real prospect of success at trial; claimants do not fall within the relevant government policy for LES, and the relationship with British authorities does not establish jurisdiction for ECHR protection; mandatory injunction is not appropriate given the lack of serious issue to be tried and balance of convenience does not favour interim relief.

Court Disposition

Application for interim relief refused