header-logo header-logo

10 July 2015
Issue: 7660 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , Costs
printer mail-detail

Costs

​Begg v HM Treasury [2015] EWHC 1851 (Admin), [2015] All ER (D) 274 (Jun)

The appellant sought a protective costs order in his appeal to have his designation under the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 declared void from the outset. He contended that, on closed material which he would never see, his claim might prove to be ill-founded. The Administrative Court recognised that a protective costs order might, in principle, be appropriate to the type of case where individuals had been accused of terrorism and reliance was placed upon closed evidence, rendering it impossible to determine the merits of any challenge and gave five strict conditions. However, a protective costs order was premature at the present point.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys senior leadership appointments

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths strengthens London Construction and Engineering practice with two strategic senior hires

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins announces strategic hire to deepen skills base in the social business sector

NEWS
Existing defamation law can respond to AI ‘hallucinations’, but allocating responsibility will prove harder where outputs reach users without human intervention
The High Court has upheld a rare successful serious-irregularity challenge after an arbitrator relied on an implied term neither party had advanced
Thirty years after The Future of Law shook a profession still using fax machines, its central forecast looks increasingly less like prophecy and more like description
More than 100 teams from the legal and financial services sectors competed in five sports at the 51st Law Society RFC Festival of Sport earlier this month
Part-time status need only be an effective cause of less favourable treatment, rather than the sole cause, the Supreme Court has held in Augustine v Data Cars
back-to-top-scroll