Costs

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.