Sentences with phrase «material procedure»

At the centre of this appeal was the court's power to order a «closed material procedure» for the whole or part of the trial of a civil claim for damages.

There was no compelling reason to replace the public interest immunity process with a closed material procedure.

Thomas Garner examines the possibility of closed material procedures in extradition proceedings

This week, Chris Grayling made a concession, the closed material procedure for evidence in civil trials came into effect, and to Theresa May's delight, Abu Qatada finally left the country.

In addition to the legal aid cuts, access to justice has also been eroded by: closed material procedures introduced by the Justice and Security Act 2013; the introduction and increase of fees in tribunals and courts, with the Employment Tribunal a specific example; and, the changes to judicial review which make it more difficult and expensive to bring a claim.

In Tariq v Home Office the Court considered the permissibility and compatibility with European Union law and the European Convention of a closed material procedure authorised by certain statutory provisions.

National security issues prompted the closed material procedure under Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/1861) where Sch 1, para 54 was used.

The Justices held by six to three that the court had power to use a closed material procedure even though this was not expressly authorised by statute.

The issue was whether the judge was right to conclude that it is open to a court, in the absence of statutory authority, to order a closed material procedure for part (or, conceivably, even the whole) of the trial of a civil claim for damages in tort and breach of statutory duty.

They were made by the Lord Chancellor under the Justice and Security Act 2013 and surprisingly were not published in blank as they deal with the Act's regime for a closed material procedure in civil proceedings in England and Wales in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.

The proposals would introduce closed material procedures (CMPs) across the civil justice system allowing the use of unseen evidence against individuals.

We saw a similar process at the 7/7 inquest, when the government asked the coroner to sit in a «closed material procedure».

The government asked the High Court to adopt a «closed material procedure» which would involve the claimants and their lawyers being excluded from the hearing of the case, and the issuing of a «closed judgment» which they would not be entitled to see.

His material procedures have become more physical and experimental.

Of course, the danger of a closed material procedure is that this essential process is compromised, disastrously....

Strong views are held on all sides of this House about whether closed material procedures should be introduced.

The main proposals in the Green Paper are based on the highly debatable assumption that existing closed material procedures (CMPs as per the acronym adopted) have been shown to operate fairly and effectively.

The appeal judges concluded that it was not open for a court to order a closed material procedure, stating that:

As readers of this blog will be aware, the Government proposes in the Green Paper to introduce «closed material procedures» into civil proceedings.

The group of 57 barristers, including 19 Queen's Counsel, argue that despite attempts, for example, to give those subject to «Closed Material Procedures» a summary of the evidence against them, they remain «fundamentally unfair» and

In al - Rawi, counsel for MI5 argued only that «the court has the power to order a closed material procedure in exceptional cases where this is necessary in the interests of justice» (§ 39, emphasis added).

There is little appetite for replacing a system, Public Interest Immunity, which broadly works with another, Closed Material Procedures, which even those who work within it say does not.

does not accept the premise that closed material procedures (CMPs) should be more widely available in civil proceedings... does not accept that the increased use and training of Special Advocates can address the inherent disadvantages to claimants that the increased use of CMPs would inevitably involve.»

In summary, the Government has recommended that controversial Closed Material Procedures and Special Advocates are used more frequently, particularly in civil proceedings.

All three cases revolve around the controversial «closed material procedure ``, which allows certain evidence to be kept from the public and sometimes a defendant, and the use of «special advocates» (SA).

They therefore sought a «closed material procedure» for this part of their defence — a procedure whereby a party can withhold certain material from the other side where its disclosure would be contrary to the public interest.

The Home Office disputed whether a «gisting» duty applied, and Tariq cross-appealed on the point of whether a closed material procedure is lawful in the employment tribunal.

However, subject to satisfactory answers on those questions, national security considerations might justify a closed material procedure, closed evidence and, furthermore, a blanket decision leaving the precise basis of the determination unclear.

The court had no power at common law to order a «closed material procedure» for the whole or part of the trial of a civil claim for damages.

Instead, debate has centred round the procedural issue of whether a closed material procedure and a special advocate can be used in the employment tribunal, and whether there is a «gisting» duty on the part of the Home Office.

The issues of principle raised by the closed material procedure were so fundamental that a closed material procedure should only be introduced in ordinary civil litigation (including judicial review) if Parliament saw it fit to do so.

Giving evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the Justice and Security Green Paper last week, Anderson spoke about the impact on civil justice of closed material procedure (CMP), under which sensitive evidence can be excluded.

Lord Justice Maurice Kay and two judges found the employment tribunal did have the power to order a closed material procedure.

The Supreme Court considered that the Crown Court can in the same way operate a closed material procedure on PII grounds on an inter partes application under the CJPA, s 59 (7) and that the High Court can conduct a closed material procedure on judicial review of a magistrate's order for a warrant under PACE, s 8 or a magistrate's order for disclosure or a Crown Court's order under s 59 (7) of the 2001 Act.

Returning to the UK, for the first time the Supreme Court held a closed material procedure, much to the vexation of Lord Neuberger, who said that the decision to hold the secret session was taken «with great reluctance.»

The court held a «closed material procedure» (CMP) for the first time in this case, to hear sensitive material about the bank, in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury [2013] UKSC 38; 39.