“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
“Justice secretary Kenneth Clarke has asked two senior judges to review sanctions for disclosure failures in criminal trials, to ‘mitigate the resource burden’ imposed by disclosure.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 3rd May 2012
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
“In the midst of rapid developments at the diplomatic and military level concerning the Gaddafi regime, it is important to remember that Libya is no stranger to UN sanctions or bombing by NATO member state warplanes.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 6th May 2011
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
Regina v F and M [2010] EWCA Crim 2437; [2010] WLR (D) 276
“An Order in Council, made pursuant to s 1 of the United Nations Act 1946 to give effect to a United Nations Security Council Resolution, could include the creation of a serious criminal offence for a breach of the Order, even though there was a substantial delay between the adoption of the Resolution and the creation of the offence.”
WLR Daily, 3rd November 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Legal action has been launched against the UK for allegedly failing to refer firms trading in ‘conflict minerals’ from DR Congo for UN sanctions.”
BBC News, 26th July 2010
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“A millionaire businessman who illegally sold former military personnel carriers to Sudan has been jailed.”
BBC News, 4th November 2009
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025