Bank Mellat: Closed Material Procedures and FOIA – Panopticon

“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.”

Full story

Panopticon, 25th June 2013

Source: www.panopticonblog.com

Lady Hale becomes most senior female judge in British legal history – The Guardian

Posted June 24th, 2013 in diversity, judges, news, Supreme Court, women by sally

“Lady Hale has become the most senior female judge in British legal history with her appointment as deputy president of the UK’s supreme court.”

Full story

The Guardian, 24th June 2013

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (Liberty intervening) (Nos 1 and 2) – WLR Daily

Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (Liberty intervening) (Nos 1 and 2) [2013] UKSC 38; [2013] UKSC 39; [2013] WLR (D) 244

“The Supreme Court had jurisdiction to entertain a closed material procedure on an appeal from decisions of the courts of England and Wales on applications brought under section 63 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. On very rare occasions it would be appropriate for the court to go into closed session for that purpose and in the circumstances of the present appeal it would do so.”

WLR Daily, 19th June 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Lady Hale to be next Deputy President of Supreme Court – Supreme Court

Posted June 24th, 2013 in judges, news, Supreme Court by sally

“Baroness Hale of Richmond has been appointed Deputy President of the Supreme Court, it was announced today.”

Full story

Supreme Court, 24th June 2013

Source: www.supremecourt.gov.uk

An ABC on proportionality – with Bank Mellat as our primer – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted June 24th, 2013 in banking, EC law, human rights, Iran, news, proportionality, Supreme Court by sally

“My post of earlier this week explained why the majority of the Supreme Court struck down a direction telling all financial institutions not to deal with this Iranian Bank. The legal ground (involving, as Lord Sumption described it, ‘an exacting analysis of the factual evidence in defence of the measure’ [20]) was that the direction was ‘disproportionate’. The judgments (particularly the dissenting one of Lord Reed) tell us a lot about the scope of proportionality. And there is a good deal more to it than there might at first sight appear.”

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 22nd June 2013

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

“Snatch Rover” case – inviting judges into the theatre of war? – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted June 21st, 2013 in armed forces, human rights, jurisdiction, negligence, news, Supreme Court, treaties, war by tracey

“Smith and Others (Appellants) v The Ministry of Defence (Respondent) and other appeals. So, the Supreme Court has refused to allow these claims to be struck out on the principle of combat immunity. It has also asserted that jurisdiction for the purpose of an Article 2 right to life claim can extend to non-Convention countries, and that the state can owe a positive duty to protect life, even in a situation of armed combat.”

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 20th June 2013

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

Supreme Court considers conditions for removing child for adoption – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted June 20th, 2013 in adoption, appeals, local government, news, parental rights, Supreme Court by sally

“This appeal concerned whether a child of two years of age should be permanently removed from her parents and placed for adoption; and, in that regard, whether the child was likely to suffer significant harm: within the meaning of s.31(2)(a) of the Children Act 1989; and a consideration of whether her permanent removal might interfere with the exercise of the right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the ECHR, and, if so, whether the order should be proportionate to its legitimate aim of protecting the child.”

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 20th June 2013

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

Cusack (Respondent) v London Borough of Harrow (Appellant) – Supreme Court

Cusack (Respondent) v London Borough of Harrow (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 40 | UKSC 2012/0006 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 19th June 2013

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Smith and Others (Appellants) v The Ministry of Defence (Respondent); Ellis and another (FC) (Respondents) v Ministry of Defence (Appellant); Allbutt and others (FC) (Respondents) v The Ministry of Defence (Appellant) – Supreme Court

Smith and Others (Appellants) v The Ministry of Defence (Respondent); Ellis and another (FC) (Respondents) v Ministry of Defence (Appellant); Allbutt and others (FC) (Respondents) v The Ministry of Defence (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 41 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 19th June 2013

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Bank Mellat (Appellant) v Her Majesty’s Treasury (Respondent) (1); Bank Mellat (Appellant) v Her Majesty’s Treasury (Respondent) (2) – Supreme Court

Posted June 20th, 2013 in appeals, banking, closed material, evidence, law reports, Supreme Court, terrorism by sally

Bank Mellat (Appellant) v Her Majesty’s Treasury (Respondent) (1); Bank Mellat (Appellant) v Her Majesty’s Treasury (Respondent) (2) UKSC 2011/0040 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 19th June 2013

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Smith and others v Ministry of Defence (JUSTICE and another intervening); Ellis and another v Same; Allbutt and others v Same – WLR Daily

Smith and others v Ministry of Defence (JUSTICE and another intervening); Ellis and another v Same; Allbutt and others v Same [2013] UKSC 41; [2013] WLR (D) 239

“Members of the United Kingdom’s armed forces serving in Iraq were within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom for the purposes of article 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Whether claims alleging breaches of the right to life protected by article 2 could be sustained would depend on the particular circumstances.”

WLR Daily, 19th June 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Supreme court MoD ruling ‘will have huge impact on military operations’ – The Guardian

“The supreme court ruling that the Ministry of Defence can be sued for negligence, that the scope of the Human Rights Act should be extended and the traditional doctrine of combat immunity should be interpreted narrowly, will have a huge impact on military commanders, senior officials made clear on Wednesday.”

Full story

The Guardian, 19th June 2013

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited 2013 UKSC 34 a victory for common sense – article by Elizabeth Darlington – Zenith Chambers

“In summary, the Supreme Court (comprising Lords Neuberger, Walker, Mance, Clarke, Wilson, Sumption and Lady Hale) has unanimously upheld the wife’s appeal and found that the Respondent group of companies held the assets on trust for the Husband. The assets therefore constitute property to which the husband is ‘entitled, either in possession or reversion’ for the purposes of section 24(1)(a) MCA.”

Full story

Zenith Chambers, 12th June 2013

Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk

The Supreme Court grasps the nettle in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd – 11 Stone Buildings

“On 12th June 2013, the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the eagerly anticipated appeal in Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited [2013] UKSC 34. For the second time this year, the Supreme Court has had to grapple with the circumstances in which it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil, the previous decision being that of VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] 2 WLR 398 (a case in which a number of 11 SB members were involved). Unlike in VTB Capital, however, this time the Supreme Court grasped the nettle and gave some practical guidance as to the reach and limitations of the doctrine.”

Full story (PDF)

11 Stone Buildings, June 2013

Source: www.11sb.com

AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC – WLR Daily

AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC [2013] UKSC 35; [2013] WLR (D) 232

“The English court had a long-standing and well-established jurisdiction to grant an injunction restraining the commencement or continuation of foreign proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration clause, even when neither party had commenced, nor intended to commence, arbitration proceedings in the agreed forum. The Arbitration Act 1996 did not affect the court’s power under that jurisdiction or under s 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.”

WLR Daily, 12th June 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

O’Neill v HM Advocate (No 2); Lauchlanv Same – WLR Daily

O’Neill v HM Advocate (No 2); Lauchlanv Same [2013] UKSC 36; [2013] WLR (D) 231

“The right to a trial within a reasonable time under article 6.1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was a separate right from the right to a fair trial under that article. Consequently the time when a person was ‘charged’ with an offence for the purposes of time starting to run under the reasonable time guarantee might be different from the time when he should have had access to a lawyer for the purposes of ensuring a fair trial under article 6.1 read with article 6.3(c).”

WLR Daily, 13th June 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Re B (A Child) – Social Engineering or Proportionate Response to Risk of Future Harm? – Family Law Week

Posted June 17th, 2013 in adoption, appeals, care orders, children, news, proportionality, Supreme Court by sally

“Janet Bazley QC and Eleri Jones of 1 Garden Court consider the Supreme Court’s decision in Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 22.”

Full story

Family Law Week, 16th June 2013

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

O’Neill No 2 (Appellant) v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Respondent) (Scotland); Lauchlan (AP) (Appellant) v. Her Majesty’s Advocate (Respondent) (Scotland) – Supreme Court

Posted June 14th, 2013 in human rights, judges, law reports, Scotland, Supreme Court, time limits, trials by sally

O’Neill No 2 (Appellant) v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Respondent) (Scotland); Lauchlan (AP) (Appellant) v. Her Majesty’s Advocate (Respondent) (Scotland) [2013] UKSC 36 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 13th June 2013

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

English courts can stop parties bringing foreign legal proceedings in breach of arbitration agreements – OUT-LAW.com

Posted June 14th, 2013 in arbitration, foreign jurisdictions, injunctions, news, Supreme Court by sally

“English courts have the power to prevent parties to an arbitration agreement from beginning legal proceedings in foreign courts in breach of that agreement, the Supreme Court has ruled.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 13th June 2013

Source: www.out-law.com

In re B (A Child)(Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) – WLR Daily

Posted June 13th, 2013 in appeals, care orders, children, law reports, Supreme Court by sally

In re B (A Child)(Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33; [2013] WLR (D) 226

“Determinations by the judge that the statutory threshold criteria were crossed for the making of a care order under section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 and that such an order should be made were evaluative judgments with which the appellate court, exercising a review jurisdiction, should only interfere if it were satisfied that the judgments were wrong.”

WLR Daily, 12th June 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk