|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> K & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Defence & Ors  EWHC 3023 (Admin) (19 September 2014)
Cite as:  EWHC 3023 (Admin)
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
| The Queen on the application of K and others
|- and -
|Secretary of State for Defence
Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Affairs
HM Attorney General
Nicholas Moss (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendants
Hearing date 17 September 2014
Crown Copyright ©
The Hon Mr Justice Burnett:
"Pending the determination of this claim, the Defendant do take all steps necessary to provide the Claimants with secure accommodation in Afghanistan and associated living expenses."
Outline of the Claim
i) The claimants were employees of the Crown; alternatively they were under contracts to provide services. Either way Miss Knights submitted that the contract was subject to express or implied terms that the Crown would provide protection and support indefinitely should it be necessary in consequence of the service. This claim is one for damages and specific performance.
ii) The claimants are owed a continuing duty of care in negligence to provide protection in the event that they receive credible threats and to provide resources to enable the claimants to live in the relatively safe areas their evidence identifies. This claim is for damages.
iii) Reliance is also placed upon the Misrepresentation Act 1967 on the basis that each of the claimants received representations as to future protection which were false. This claim too is one for damages.
i) liability has been admitted; or
ii) judgment has been entered; or
iii) the court is satisfied that, if the claim went to trial, the claimants would obtain judgment for a substantial sum.
"If it appears that, exceptionally, the case is one in which withholding a mandatory interlocutory injunction would in fact carry a greater risk of injustice than granting it, even though the court does not feel a "high degree of assurance" about the plaintiff's chances of establishing his right, there cannot be any rational basis for withholding the injunction."