Kamoka & Ors v The Security Service & Ors [2015] EWHC 60 (QB) (22 January 2015)

Kamoka & Ors v The Security Service & Ors [2015] EWHC 60 (QB) (22 January 2015)

The statutory regimes governing SIAC and Control Orders do not constitute an absolute bar to private law claims for damages or misfeasance in public office, but such claims may amount to an abuse of process if they seek to re-litigate issues already determined or that could have been raised in the original proceedings. The statutory language is not sufficiently clear to oust common law remedies in all circumstances, but the existence of prior proceedings and the potential for inconsistent judgments require careful scrutiny. The claims may proceed past this preliminary stage, but the abuse of process doctrine remains relevant to their ultimate viability.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 60 (QB)
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
High Court Civil Claim (queen's Bench Division) / Application to Strike Out And/or Dismiss Claims; Preliminary Ruling on Statutory Bar and Abuse of Process
Outcome
Claims not struck out at this stage; statutory bar not absolute; abuse of process remains a live issue for further consideration.
Legal Topics
Statutory Bar to Civil Claims, Control Orders, SIAC Proceedings, False Imprisonment, Misfeasance in Public Office, Disclosure Obligations, Abuse of Process, Asset Freezing, Judicial Review, Damages Claims
Public Law National Security Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Tort Law Statutory Bar to Civil Claims Control Orders SIAC Proceedings +7 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 27 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

High Court Civil Claim (queen's Bench Division) / Application to Strike Out And/or Dismiss Claims; Preliminary Ruling on Statutory Bar and Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statutory regimes (SIAC Act 1997, Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005) bar private law claims for damages and misfeasance
  2. 2 Whether the claims amount to an abuse of process as collateral attack on previous judicial decisions
  3. 3 Whether failures of disclosure or candour by the Defendants justify civil claims despite prior proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory regimes governing SIAC and Control Orders do not constitute an absolute bar to private law claims for damages or misfeasance in public office, but such claims may amount to an abuse of process if they seek to re-litigate issues already determined or that could have been raised in the original proceedings. The statutory language is not sufficiently clear to oust common law remedies in all circumstances, but the existence of prior proceedings and the potential for inconsistent judgments require careful scrutiny. The claims may proceed past this preliminary stage, but the abuse of process doctrine remains relevant to their ultimate viability.

Court Disposition

Claims not struck out at this stage; statutory bar not absolute; abuse of process remains a live issue for further consideration.

Orders

  • Defendants' application to strike out or dismiss the claims is refused at this stage.
  • Claims may proceed subject to further scrutiny regarding abuse of process and the nature of any fresh evidence.