The Present Proceedings
The Present Proceedings
As I have said, the Claim Form in the present proceedings was issued on 3 December 2024, challenging the Final Order. On 12 December 2024, CDL made an application for a declaration under s. 6 Justice and Security Act 2013 (‘the 2013 Act’), submitting both OPEN and CLOSED material in support of that application. On 16 December 2024 Chamberlain J ordered that these proceedings were ones in which a closed material application might be made to the Court. On 18 December 2024, CDL made an application under s. 8 of the 2013 Act. On 15 January 2025, and after CDL had agreed to make further disclosure of material in OPEN, Chamberlain J granted permission to CDL, under s. 8 of the 2013 Act, to withhold sensitive material from FTDIHL, FTDI and their legal representatives.
Case Management Directions were given by the Divisional Court after the hearing on 16 January 2025. These included provisions for CDL to file and serve OPEN and CLOSED versions of his Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim and OPEN and CLOSED evidence; for the Claimant to file an OPEN Skeleton Argument, and for the Special Advocates to file a CLOSED Skeleton Argument; and for CDL to serve OPEN and CLOSED Skeleton Arguments.
The hearing between 6th and 9th May 2025 was largely OPEN. There were certain portions which were CLOSED, during which the Court was addressed and assisted by the Special Advocates, in the absence of FTDI and FTDIHL and their representatives.
FTDIHL challenges the Final Order on six grounds. They are, in the order and with the numbering with which they appear in the Re-Amended Statement of Facts and Grounds as follows:
Ground 1A: That the Final Order was ultra vires because the Call-In Notice was not served within time.
Ground 1B: That the Final Order was unlawful because the Secretary of State was aware of the Trigger Event more than six months before the Call-In Notice was sent to FTDI.
Ground 2: That the process of decision-making leading up to the Final Order breached the common law and Article 6 ECHR requirements of procedural fairness.
Ground 3: That no or no sufficient reasons were given for the making of the Final Order.
Ground 4: That the Final Order breached Article 1 of Protocol 1 (‘A1P1’) to ECHR.
Ground 5: That the Final Order was irrational and/or unreasonable.
![AC-2024-LON-003985 - [2025] EWHC 1922 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png)