Kamoka & Ors v The Security Service & Ors

Kamoka & Ors v The Security Service & Ors

The statutory regimes governing SIAC and Control Orders do not constitute an absolute bar to private law actions in these unusual circumstances. However, the Court must be vigilant to prevent abuse of process, particularly where claims risk duplicating or undermining prior determinations. The claims are not struck out at this stage, but a stay is granted for a limited period to allow the Defendants to consider whether to renew their application with reference to CLOSED material. In relation to Claimants 11 and 12, there is no statutory or abuse of process bar to their private law claims, and the strike out application is refused.

Parties
Claimant: Ismail Kamoka; Claimant: Ziad Ali Hashem; Claimant: Abdel Nasser Bourouag; Claimant: Khaled Abusalama Al Allaqi; Claimant: Alia Bibi Hassan (Administratrix for the Estate of Faraj Hassan Al-Saadi); Claimant: Mahmud Mohamed Abushima; Claimant: Abdullah Bakr Hassan; Claimant: Salah Mohammed; Claimant: Abdulbaqi Khaled; Claimant: Abdulbasit Abdulrahim; Defendant: The Security Service; Defendant: The Secret Intelligence Service; Defendant: The Attorney General; Defendant: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Defendant: The Home Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil (judicial Review and Private Law Claims) / Application to Strike Out And/or Stay Claims
Outcome
Defendants' applications to strike out are refused; claims are stayed for 56 days for Defendants to consider renewal of strike out application with CLOSED material; in relation to Claimants 11 and 12, strike out is refused and claims may proceed.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Statutory Bar, Control Orders, SIAC Proceedings, Asset Freezing, Disclosure Obligations, Misfeasance in Public Office, Conspiracy, Judicial Review
Public Law National Security Human Rights Immigration Law Tort Law Abuse of Process Statutory Bar Control Orders +6 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 30 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ismail Kamoka

Claimant

Ziad Ali Hashem

Claimant

Abdel Nasser Bourouag

Claimant

Khaled Abusalama Al Allaqi

Claimant

Alia Bibi Hassan (Administratrix for the Estate of Faraj Hassan Al-Saadi)

Claimant

Mahmud Mohamed Abushima

Claimant

Abdullah Bakr Hassan

Claimant

Salah Mohammed

Claimant

Abdulbaqi Khaled

Claimant

Abdulbasit Abdulrahim

Claimant

The Security Service

Defendant

The Secret Intelligence Service

Defendant

The Attorney General

Defendant

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Defendant

The Home Office

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (judicial Review and Private Law Claims) / Application to Strike Out And/or Stay Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statutory regimes (SIAC Act 1997, Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, TPIM Act 2011) bar private law actions in these circumstances
  2. 2 Whether the claims amount to an abuse of process as collateral attacks on prior decisions
  3. 3 Whether the claims should be struck out or stayed pending further procedural steps

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory regimes governing SIAC and Control Orders do not constitute an absolute bar to private law actions in these unusual circumstances. However, the Court must be vigilant to prevent abuse of process, particularly where claims risk duplicating or undermining prior determinations. The claims are not struck out at this stage, but a stay is granted for a limited period to allow the Defendants to consider whether to renew their application with reference to CLOSED material. In relation to Claimants 11 and 12, there is no statutory or abuse of process bar to their private law claims, and the strike out application is refused.

Court Disposition

Defendants' applications to strike out are refused; claims are stayed for 56 days for Defendants to consider renewal of strike out application with CLOSED material; in relation to Claimants 11 and 12, strike out is refused and claims may proceed.

Orders

  • Stay of claims for 56 days for Defendants to indicate intention to renew strike out application with CLOSED material.
  • If no such application is made, stay lapses without further order.