“Two sets of judgments today from a 9-judge Supreme Court in the Bank Mellat case. The first explains why the Court adopted a secret procedure in the absence of the Bank (i.e. a Closed Material Procedure) but added that the whole palaver in fact added nothing to their knowledge. The second concludes that financial restrictions imposed in 2009 on an Iranian Bank which effectively excluded it from the UK financial market were arbitrary and irrational and were also procedurally unfair.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 19th June 2013
“The Supreme Court handed down judgment in the Atomic Veterans Litigation (AVL) on 14 March 2012. The appeal is the first time the highest court has considered the law of limitation in group actions. The decision as to the correct approach to knowledge for the purpose of s.14(1) Limitation Act 1980 is relevant not only to personal injury claims but also to actions in respect of defective products (ss. 11A(4)(b) and 5(b)) and negligence actions not involving personal injury (s.14A). The decision is also relevant to the law of causation in tort and the extent to which claims may be proved by merely showing a material increase in the risk of harm.”
Full story (PDF)
4 New Square, 14th March 2012
“Reasonable belief that a claimant’s injury was attributable to an act or omission of the defendant was sufficient to satisfy the requirement of knowledge in sections 11 and 14 of the Limitation Act 1980 for the purpose of determining whether his claim was time-barred.”
WLR Daily, 14th March 2012
“In the week commencing 14 November 2011, a seven-member panel of Justices of the Supreme Court (L Phillips, L Walker, L Hale, L Brown, L Mance, L Kerr and L Wilson) heard the Claimants’ appeal from the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Atomic Veterans Litigation (AB v Ministry of Defence  EWCA Civ 1317). Argument took place over four days and judgment was reserved by the Supreme Court.”
4 New Square, 21st November 2011
“The powers conferred on HM Treasury by Sch 7 to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 to give directions by order to persons operating in the United Kingdom financial sector could be lawfully exercised without allowing persons likely to be adversely affected by the order an opportunity to make prior representations; and the test of proportionality applied by para 9(6) of Sch 7 to the requirements imposed by such a direction was to be interpreted consistently with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which the means used did not always have to be limited to the minimum necessary to accomplish the legislative objective.”
WLR Daily, 15th June 2010
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Court of Appeal
“A bylaw prohibiting camping on land at Aldermaston was not justifiable and violated the rights to freedom of expression and of assembly guaranted by articles 10 and 11 respectively of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
The Times, 25th February 2009
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“Para 7(2)(f) of the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) Aldermaston Byelaws 2007, which prohibited the right of any member of the Women’s Peace Camp to camp within controlled areas on land owned by the Secretary of State for Defence to protest against nuclear weapons was not justifiable and violated the rights to individual freedom of expression and to freedom of peaceful assembly protected by arts 10 and 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom.”
WLR Daily, 5th February 2009
Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Fifty years ago the UK Government began a series of atomic and thermonuclear weapons tests on the Australian mainland, on Christmas Island and elsewhere in the South Pacific. About 25,000 members of the British, Australian and New Zealand Armed Forces, many national servicemen, and some Fijians, took part in the testing programme — either actively or as bystanders. This week nearly 1,000 veterans took their multimillion-pound compensation claim against the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to the High Court. They say they have suffered illnesses — including cancers, skin defects and fertility problems — because of exposure to radiation from the tests.”
The Times, 22nd January 2009
“Ministers have been accused of blocking compensation claims brought by hundreds of nuclear test veterans who believe they developed cancers and other illnesses after being forced to witness atomic bomb experiments in the 1950s and ’60s.”
The Independent, 11th January 2009