Security Industry Authority v Josoemag Services Ltd

Hearing date: 20 May 2025

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10am on 6 June 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

The Appeal

The appellant ( the SIA) is the statutory regulator for the security industry, exercising functions conferred by the Private Security Industry Act 2001 ( the 2001 Act). The second and third respondents are the directors and shareholders of the first respondent ( JSL), which provides temporary security staff to businesses, both within and outside the private security sector. JSL's business activities are regulated by the SIA under the 2001 Act.

In August 2023, the respondents (the claimants below) brought a claim against the SIA for damages under section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 ( the HRA) asserting that the SIA had, in the course of its regulatory activities, wrongfully interfered with the respondents' right to peaceful enjoyment of their property, contrary to article 1, first protocol ( A1P1) to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ( the ECHR).

This appeal concerns the respondents' attempts to amend the claim form to expand the scope of the damages claim to add alleged violations of articles 6, 8 and 14 of the ECHR, in addition to A1P1. In June 2024, Master Gidden granted the applications to amend and allowed the claim to proceed on the basis pleaded in the particulars of claim, which included reliance on articles 6, 8 and 14. He gave directions for the filing of a defence, which has since been served.

The SIA submits that Master Gidden was wrong to allow the amendments, principally because the one year limitation period under section 7(5) of the HRA had expired and the added claims were new claims not arising out of the same or substantially the same facts as were already in issue ( CPR rule 17.4(2)). The respondents say rule 17.4 does not apply here because the SIA is at no risk of what is called “relation back prejudice” arising from application of the “relation back” provision in section 35(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980 ( the 1980 Act).

Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies to this appeal. I have all the usual duties and powers in an appeal of this kind. I must allow the appeal (by CPR rule 52.21(3)) if I consider that the decision of the Master was wrong, or that it was unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the course of the proceedings. The latter is not suggested here. What is said is that the Master misapplied the law and erred in his approach to the amendment applications.

The Claim

The particulars of claim dated 4 December 2023 state as follows. The second and third claimants are Nigerian nationals of African descent. They and JSL were licensed by the SIA to provide “licensable services” within the private security sector. In December 2019 they obtained “approved contractor status” for JSL in the security guarding sector. The licence and the approved contractor status were possessions within A1P1. From mid-2021 the SIA, a public authority, conducted “a series of groundless investigations” into the respondents' activities.

The SIA investigated whether the application for approved contractor status had been made fraudulently in 2019; and whether a “bounce back loan” from a bank had been fraudulently obtained. The SIA obtained delivery up by the bank of the loan application, under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ( POCA). The SIA requested information under POCA and interviewed the second and third respondents in October 2021 about suspected supply of an unlicensed person as staff. It requested information under POCA on the subject in November 2021.

These investigations were a disproportionate interference with the respondents' private lives and correspondence in that no enquiries or checks were made to verify that the allegations were other than baseless, which they were. The use of compulsory requests for information and documents was excessive and disproportionate. The information could have been obtained without compulsion. The respondents were victims within section 7 of the HRA and article 34 of the ECHR and the individuals were victims of the violations of JSL's Convention rights because they owned and controlled JSL.

The ongoing criminal investigations led the SIA to delay considering the second and third respondents' applications for renewal of their individual licences, which had been applied for in September and October 2021. The compulsory demands for information under section 19 of the 2001 Act continued into 2022, substantially duplicating similar demands made in 2021. The respondents were told by the SIA in March 2022 that they were under criminal investigation for offences of supplying unlicensed operatives.

In August 2022, the SIA laid an information before Bromley Magistrates' Court against the second and third respondents for failing without reasonable excuse to provide information requested in January 2022 under section 19 of the 2001 Act. The respondents plead that the request was incompatible with their right to respect for their private lives and correspondence and with their privilege against self-incrimination under article 6(1) of the ECHR.

The SIA then, it is pleaded, placed the names of the respondents on a publicly available list of persons against whom it had commenced criminal proceedings, in further violation of their article 8 rights. On 19 August 2022, the SIA suspended the second respondent's “front line licence” pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings, knowingly preventing JSL from trading in its main sphere of operations for what would be, as the SIA knew, several months.

In January 2023, the SIA withdrew JSL's approved contractor status in the light of the suspension of the second respondent's “front line” licence the previous August. That meant the respondents could not trade. The suspension and subsequent withdrawal of the relevant licences was a violation of the respondents' rights under A1P1 as it precluded them from trading, causing financial loss. The interferences were arbitrary and disproportionate; there were no objective grounds for suspecting dishonesty or misconduct.

The repeated criminal investigations and requests for information in 2021 and 2022, the criminal prosecution in 2022 and 2023 and the suspension and withdrawal of the licence and of JSL's approved contractor status constituted “a pattern of targeted behaviour against the claimants amounting to direct discrimination and/or harassment of them … on the grounds of second and third claimants' race or national origin” (particulars of claim, paragraph 31), contrary to article 14 of the ECHR, read with articles 6 and 8 and A1P1.

On 28 February 2023, the Bromley Magistrates' Court acquitted the second and third respondents of any offence under section 19(5) of the 2001 Act and awarded them their costs. On 23 March 2023, the SIA restored the approved contractor status and granted the applications to renew the relevant expired licences, enabling JSL to trade again. However, the second respondent's position was not fully restored; he was not able to make a valid application for renewal of his front line licence after its expiry in December 2022.

The claim is for damages within the meaning of article 41 of the ECHR, comprising financial loss of £464,000 as at 4 December 2023 and continuing up to 31 May 2025; and for “non-pecuniary loss”, graphically pleaded at paragraph 42 which, it is said, caused a specific deterioration in the second respondent's health, with a diagnosis in 2023 of a nodule on his vocal chord, which needs to be surgically removed and requiring treatment by speech and language therapy. Interest is claimed under section 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

In the pleaded defence (served eight months later, on 31 July 2024) much of the above is either denied or not admitted. The SIA does not admit that the second and third respondents are Nigerian nationals of African descent, though it advances no positive contrary case. The licensing position is subject to some dispute. It is admitted that JSL possessed approved contractor status in the security guarding sector. Quite a lot of the detailed factual allegations are disputed to some extent.

As for the SIA's investigations, the various requests for information and documents and the bringing of the criminal proceedings are admitted, though some of the details are disputed. It is denied that the investigations were groundless and asserted that the SIA was entitled to consider whether JSL was carrying out its business properly and lawfully. In short, the SIA says it carried out its statutory regulatory functions properly, in good faith and impartially, under the 2001 Act and under POCA.

It is said in the defence that the claims arising from 2021 and early 2022 are “statute barred” as the limitation period is one year from the date of the act complained of. Limitation is relied on as a defence “in respect of all claims … in respect of which the act complained of was more than one year from the date of issue of the claim”, which was 4 August 2023 (defence, paragraph 11). The SIA...