‘Parties opposing applications for relief from sanctions should not assume that they are going to get a “free costs ride” in opposing them, a High Court judge has warned.’
Litigation Futures, 27th March 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Offenders are choosing to spend extra time in jail rather than pay confiscation orders and the sanctions for such non-payment do not work, the Public Accounts Committee has said.’
Local Government Lawyer, 24th March 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Iranian government is taking a Ministry of Defence-owned company to the High Court to end a £400m row over British-made Chieftain tanks that has dragged on for 35 years.’
The Independent, 2nd February 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘This is an important case on the question of the correct approach where there has been default in respect of a sanction imposed by the court under the new “post- Jackson” regime, both in terms of the appropriate structure of applications for relief against sanctions. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the deputy high court judge and refused to entertain a second application for relief against sanctions where a previous judge had ordered that the defence and counterclaim be struck out.
The history of litigation and orders is slightly complex but has to be understood.’
Sovereign Chambers, 20th January 2014
Source: www.sovereignchambers.co.uk
‘In his monthly column, James Bickford Smith discusses Durrant v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary [2013] EWCA Civ 1624 in which the Court of Appeal, after its decision in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537, took further eye-catching steps to impose the new approach to relief from sanctions.’
Littleton Chambers, 8th January 2014
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘The facts and consequences of Mitchell are now well known, if not notorious amongst those conducting civil ligation.’
Sovereign Chambers, 7th January 2014
Source: www.sovereignchambers.co.uk
“The latest High Court decision refusing relief from sanctions shows how tough the courts are becoming in implementing the Jackson reforms, a QC has warned.”
Litigation Futures, 9th October 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
“At the District Judges’ Annual Seminar on 22 March 2013, Lord Dyson said “indulgence can no longer be given where the parties fail to comply with their procedural obligations. It has not taken long for the Court’s to demonstrate that they will get tough.”
Sovereign Chambers, 6th September 2013
Source: www.sovereignchambers.co.uk
“Cross-government coordination on an issue that affects trade, international development, foreign affairs, business activity and human rights is remarkable, especially at such a difficult economic time. So the UK’s Action Plan on Business and Human Rights, which is the government’s long-awaited strategy for implementing the 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, is to be applauded for this achievement. Yet, while the Plan establishes clear expectations that UK companies should respect human rights, there are no effective legal requirements placed on them to do so.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 4th September 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“The Local Government Ombudsman has said that a local authority failed properly to assess an application for planning permission against planning policies and has ordered that compensation be paid to householders.”
OUT-LAW.com, 29th August
Source: www.out-law.com
“The taxpayer faces a bill for up to £1 billion after the Government was sued by an Iranian bank that claimed it had been wrongly placed on a sanctions blacklist.”
Daily Telegraph, 19th August 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“On 19 June 2013, the Supreme Court gave judgment in the case of Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No. 1) and (No. 2). Gavin Irwin reviews the latest developments in the deployment of sanctions against Iran and the tensions that can arise between international organisations, nation states and commercial entities.”
Full story (PDF)
Dyers Chambers, 11th July 2013
Source: www.dyerschambers.com
“Last week, the Supreme Court gave judgment in Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (no.1) [2013] UKSC 38. The Bank Mellat case involved financial restrictions imposed by HMT on the Bank under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (“the 2008 Act”), on the basis that it enabled funding for Iran’s nuclear weapons programme. The High Court and Court of Appeal had both adopted a closed material procedure (“CMP”) – i.e. a procedure in which the court sits in private, and hears evidence and/or submissions without one party either being present or seeing the material – in order to consider sensitive material adduced by HMT which could not be disclosed to the Bank. They had specific statutory authority to do so under the 2008 Act. The Supreme Court did not have such authority. The relevant questions were whether it was possible for the Supreme Court to adopt a CMP on appeal, in the absence of specific statutory provision; and if so, whether it was appropriate to do so in that particular case. The Supreme Court was faced with the difficulty of reconciling two strong but opposing interests. On the one hand, it was important that the Court should be able to see and consider any relevant material before the High Court and Court of Appeal. On the other, the Supreme Court itself in Al Rawi v Security Service [2012] 1 AC 531 had uncompromisingly set its face against any derogation from the open justice principle. The Supreme Court was divided; but the majority considered that the Court had implied authority to adopt a CMP under its powers conferred by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, where the lower courts had themselves used a CMP. Nevertheless, the Court was uncomfortable about doing so, and expressed that discomfort in strong terms.”
Panopticon, 25th June 2013
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
“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
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“The government’s enthusiasm for secret courts has been set back after the UK’s most senior judges quashed anti-terrorist sanctions imposed on an Iranian bank and dismissed the intelligence involved as insignificant.”
The Guardian, 19th June 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Courts are taking an increasingly tough stance on non-compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), an expert has said, following comments by a High Court judge that parties that do not comply with court rules and practice directions will be likely to face ‘severe sanctions’.”
OUT-LAW.com, 31st May 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“The High Court has issued a fresh warning that it will take a ‘very much stricter view’ of the failure to comply with directions in the post-Jackson world.”
Litigation Futures, 29th May 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
“The Treasury is urging the supreme court to consider secret evidence for the first time when it hears an appeal by an Iranian bank against sanctions imposed on it by the British government.”
The Guardian, 22nd January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Up and down the country, local authorities have been putting in place new standards arrangements so as to comply with the Localism Act 2011 (‘the 2011 Act’) and the regulations made thereunder. The first hearings for dealing with allegedly errant councillors under the new standards regime are taking place.”
11 KBW, 20th November 2012
Source: www.11kbw.com
“The further review was established to consider the specific issue of sanctions for disclosure failure by both the prosecution and the defence; whether the sanctions available, together with judicial case management powers, are adequate to secure compliance with disclosure duties and, if not, whether there are options for strengthening those sanctions.”
Judiciary of England and Wales, 22nd November 2012
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024