Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2010] All ER (D) 86 (Jan)
Neutral Citation: [2010] EWHC 42 (Admin)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court (London)
Judge:

Silber J

Representation Tim Eicke and Andrew O'Connor (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.
  Timothy Otty QC and Zubair Ahmad (instructed by Middleweeks, Manchester) for AF.
  Tim Owen QC and Ali Naseem Bajwa (instructed by Chambers, Bradford) for AE.
Judgment Dates: 18 January 2010

Catchwords

Terrorism - Prevention of - Control order - Non-derogating control order - Authority identifying new disclosure requirements in control order cases - Controlees' control orders being revoked by Secretary of State - Controlees' representatives seeking further relief on controlees' behalf including quashing of orders ab initio, damages and costs - Whether orders to be quashed ab initio - Whether disclosure requirements identified in authority applying to damages claim - Whether controlee entitled to recover costs from Secretary of State - European Convention on Human Rights, art 6.

The Case

Terrorism Prevention of. The Administrative Court ruled in the conjoined cases of two controlees: (i) that their respective control orders would be quashed ab initio; (ii) that the disclosure requirements identified in the case of 'AF (No 3)' applied in principle to a claim for damages by a controlled person arising out of the imposition of a control order upon him; and (iii) that the controlees would be entitled to recover their costs from the Secretary of State from the date when those orders were quashed, payment to be made by the Secretary of State on the standard basis.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.