Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2)

Hearings

England & Wales

11 Jun 2010 [2010] EWHC 1332 (QB); [2010] Lloyd's Rep FC 504; [2010] WLR (D) 148, QBD (Mitting J)

13 Jan 2011 [2011] EWCA Civ 1; [2012] QB 101; [2011] 3 WLR 714; [2011] 2 All ER 802, CA

19 Jun 2013 [2013] UKSC 38; [2013] UKSC 39; [2014] AC 700; [2013] 3 WLR 179; [2013] 4 All ER 495; [2013] 4 All ER 533; [2013] Lloyd's Rep FC 580; [2013] HRLR 30; [2013] WLR (D) 244, SC(E) (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC, Lord Dyson MR, Lord Hope of Craighead DPSC, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath JJSC)

Subject Matter

STATUTORY INSTRUMENT — Validity — - — Order directing persons operating in UK financial sector not to do business with claimant with aim of inhibiting development of nuclear weapons by Iran— Whether claimant should have been given opportunity to make representations before order made— Whether order “proportionate” having regard to risk to national interests of United Kingdom posed by Iranian development of nuclear weapons— Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 6(1), Pt II, art 1— Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, Sch 7, paras 1(4), 9(6)— Financial Restrictions (Iran) Order 2009 (SI 2009/2725)

[2010] EWHC 1332 (QB); [2010] Lloyd's Rep FC 504; [2010] WLR (D) 148, QBD

CROWN — Order in Council — Validity — Treasury making Order in Council containing direction prohibiting transactions or business relationships with Iranian bank in order to prevent facilitation of production of nuclear weapons in Iran— Bank not given opportunity to make representations before making of Order— Bank applying to set aside direction— Whether requirement that least measure be used— Whether existence of less intrusive measure use of which would not significantly compromise legitimate aim of restriction relevant to its proportionality— Whether Order proportionate— Whether procedurally flawed— Whether Parliament excluding common law right to make representations before direction made— Whether Convention right to fair hearing engaged when direction made and laid before Parliament— Whether statutory procedure breaching Convention rights— Whether Order lawful— Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 6, Pt II, art 1 — Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (c 28), ss 62, 63, Sch 7

[2011] EWCA Civ 1; [2012] QB 101; [2011] 3 WLR 714; [2011] 2 All ER 802, CA

CROWN — Order in Council — Validity — Treasury making Order in Council containing direction prohibiting transactions or business relationships with Iranian bank in order to prevent facilitation of production of nuclear weapons in Iran— Bank not given opportunity to make representations before making of Order— Bank applying to set aside direction— Whether requirement that least measure be used— Whether Order proportionate— Whether procedurally flawed— Whether Parliament excluding common law right to make representations before direction made— Whether statutory procedure breaching Convention rights— Whether Order lawful— Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 6, Pt II, art 1 — Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (c 28), ss 62, 63, Sch 7

[2013] UKSC 38; [2013] UKSC 39; [2014] AC 700; [2013] 3 WLR 179; [2013] 4 All ER 495; [2013] 4 All ER 533; [2013] Lloyd's Rep FC 580; [2013] HRLR 30; [2013] WLR (D) 244, SC(E)

SUPREME COURT — Jurisdiction — Evidence — Closed material procedure— Order in Council containing direction prohibiting transactions or business relationships with Iranian bank in order to prevent facilitation of production of nuclear weapons in Iran— Bank’s appeal from court’s refusal to set aside Order— Treasury proposing to rely on closed material in resisting appeal— Whether jurisdiction for Supreme Court to entertain closed material— Whether appropriate to entertain material— Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (c 4), s 40

[2013] UKSC 38; [2013] UKSC 39; [2014] AC 700; [2013] 3 WLR 179; [2013] 4 All ER 495; [2013] 4 All ER 533; [2013] Lloyd's Rep FC 580; [2013] HRLR 30; [2013] WLR (D) 244, SC(E)

Appellate History

Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2010] EWHC 1332 (QB); [2010] Lloyd's Rep FC 504; [2010] WLR (D) 148, QBD

Decision of Mitting J affirmed

Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2011] EWCA Civ 1; [2012] QB 101; [2011] 3 WLR 714; [2011] 2 All ER 802, CA

Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2011] EWCA Civ 1; [2012] QB 101; [2011] 3 WLR 714; [2011] 2 All ER 802, CA

Decision of the Court of Appeal reversed

Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 38; [2013] UKSC 39; [2014] AC 700; [2013] 3 WLR 179; [2013] 4 All ER 495; [2013] 4 All ER 533; [2013] Lloyd's Rep FC 580; [2013] HRLR 30; [2013] WLR (D) 244, SC(E)

Commentary

UKSC Blog
Case Comment: Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (Nos 1 and 2) [2013] UKSC 38 and [2013] UKSC 39 [2013] Cas Com 1

Blackstones Civil Practice 2023
Grounds of Judicial Review - Infringement of express procedural rules 77.23

Convention Rights - Proportionality 91.13

Subscribe or Register to access the full case information page. Registered users can access three Law Reports, three case information pages and perform three Case Genie searches per month. If you already have an ICLR account please log in. For other queries or to request a free trial please contact ICLR.

MoJ users should log in here.

We use cookies on this website, you can read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. To use website as intended please Accept Cookies