The Supreme Court decision in the case of Tariq v Home Office  UKSC 35 concerned the compatibility with EU law and Article 6 ECHR of the closed material procedure under the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004. Mr Tariq was employed by the Home Office as an immigration officer, but had his security clearance withdrawn after the arrest of his brother and cousin during an investigation into a suspected terrorist plot to blow up transatlantic aircraft. Following his claim for racial and religious discrimination, he objected to the Employment Tribunal’s decision that the Home Office was permitted to rely on material that would not be shown to him or his legal representatives but would be seen by a special advocate appointed to act on his behalf.
The Supreme Court ruled that the use of the statutory closed material procedure before the Employment Tribunal is lawful. It also accepted the Home Office’s argument that there was no absolute requirement that a Claimant in a discrimination claim be provided with sufficient detail of the allegations against him to enable him to give instructions to his legal representative, where doing so would involve the disclosure of information which would damage national security.
James Eadie QC and Catherine Callaghan appeared for the Home Office.
John Howell QC and Naina Patel appeared for JUSTICE and Liberty, interveners.