Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
The Court of Appeal has dismissed two separate appeals against declarations under section 6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 (JSA 2013) that the relevant proceedings were ones in which closed material applications could be made to the court. In doing so, and in relation to both cases, the Court of Appeal found the two conditions under JSA 2013, sections 6(4) and 6(5) had been met, namely:
The Court of Appeal also considered CMP principles under Part 82 of the CPR including its being:
In coming to its decisions on these two separate appeals, the court took into account various leading authorities including Bank Mellat, Al Rawi and Mohammed.
These two appeals are of interest considering, as they do, the meaning and application of the relatively young and untested Justice and Security Act 2013 (JSA 2013).
As Lord Justice Richards observed, this Act authorises, 'in defined circumstances for the protection of national security', 'a serious departure from the fundamental principles of open justice and natural justice'.
However, given 'appropriate safeguards against inappropriate or excessive use of a closed material procedure are built into the provisions themselves, starting with the conditions for a section 6 declaration and encompassing the provisions for review and revocation of a declaration' and the defined conditions for its exceptional and rare use, Richards LJ considered there was 'no reason to give the statutory provisions a narrow or restrictive construction ... the provisions should be given their natural meaning and be applied accordingly'.
That said, the 'absolute protection' afforded to material which would be damaging to the interests of national security afforded under CPR 82.14(7) must be balanced against the rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, Article 6).
In upholding the lower courts’ section 6 declarations, the Court of Appeal found, among other things:
Subscribers to LexisPSL Dispute Resolution can find more details here including further case analysis additional practical implications arising from these cases. If you are not a subscriber you can click here for a free trial to access.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial. See our full terms here.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
Virginia specialises in general domestic and international commercial litigation, arbitration and alternative dispute resolution.
Virginia trained, qualified and practiced with Pinsent Masons before moving to Marriott Harrison where she continued in practice for a further seven years.
In practice, Virginia acted in a variety of general commercial disputes covering areas including intellectual property, fraud, defamation, misrepresentation, breach of contract, debt recovery, breach of restrictive covenants and company and shareholders’ disputes.
Virginia is Head of Dispute Resolution at Lexis®PSL and, when not focused on the strategic development and operational requirements of the Dispute Resolution module, her content work focuses on case management and evidence in civil litigation. She also regularly contributes to the LexisNexis Dispute Resolution Blog.
0330 161 1234