Abdule & Ors v The Foreign And Commonwealth Office & Ors (national security - jurisdiction and status)

Abdule & Ors v The Foreign And Commonwealth Office & Ors (national security - jurisdiction and status)

The court directed that the Defendants must serve a draft CLOSED defence and, as far as can be pleaded, an OPEN defence prior to the s.6 JSA 2013 hearing. The Master held that she has jurisdiction to make such directions and to hear s.6 applications, but as a matter of discretion and practicality, the substantive s.6 application should be released to a full puisne judge of the High Court due to the lack of closed facilities and the public interest in having such matters heard by the most appropriately experienced judges.

Parties
Claimant: Ms Muna Abdule; Claimant: Aburahman Yusuf; Claimant: Miss Nusaba Yusuf; Claimant: Miss Ruwayda Yusuf; Defendant: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Defendant: The Home Office; Defendant: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim / Interlocutory Application for Directions Prior to S.6 Justice and Security Act 2013 Hearing
Outcome
Application granted in part; directions made; matter released to puisne judge for substantive s.6 hearing.
Legal Topics
Closed Material Procedure, Jurisdiction of Masters, Article 6 ECHR, Assault, False Imprisonment, Misfeasance in Public Office
Civil Procedure National Security Human Rights Closed Material Procedure Jurisdiction of Masters Article 6 ECHR Assault False Imprisonment +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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Muna Abdule

Claimant

Aburahman Yusuf

Claimant

Miss Nusaba Yusuf

Claimant

Miss Ruwayda Yusuf

Claimant

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Defendant

The Home Office

Defendant

The Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim / Interlocutory Application for Directions Prior to S.6 Justice and Security Act 2013 Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants should be ordered to serve a draft CLOSED defence and/or OPEN defence prior to the s.6 JSA 2013 hearing
  2. 2 Whether a Master has jurisdiction to hear a s.6 JSA 2013 application or must release to a puisne judge
  3. 3 Whether, if jurisdiction exists, the matter should be released to a puisne judge as a matter of discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The court directed that the Defendants must serve a draft CLOSED defence and, as far as can be pleaded, an OPEN defence prior to the s.6 JSA 2013 hearing. The Master held that she has jurisdiction to make such directions and to hear s.6 applications, but as a matter of discretion and practicality, the substantive s.6 application should be released to a full puisne judge of the High Court due to the lack of closed facilities and the public interest in having such matters heard by the most appropriately experienced judges.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; directions made; matter released to puisne judge for substantive s.6 hearing.

Orders

  • Defendants to serve a draft CLOSED defence and, as far as can be pleaded, an OPEN defence prior to the s.6 hearing.
  • Proceedings released for hearing of the s.6 application before a full puisne judge of the High Court.