header-logo header-logo

27 June 2013
Issue: 7566 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Supreme Court

Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury [2013] UKSC 38, [2013] All ER (D) 164 (Jun)

The Supreme Court was able to conduct a closed material procedure on appeals against decisions of the courts of England and Wales on applications brought under s 63(2) of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. Section 40(2) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 provided that an appeal lay to the Supreme Court against “any” judgment of the Court of Appeal. That had to extend to a judgment which was wholly or partially closed. In order for an appeal against a wholly or partially closed judgment to be effective, the hearing would have to involve, normally only in part, a closed material procedure. An appeal under s 40(2) of the 2005 Act was “an appeal…under any enactment”. Accordingly, where an appeal was brought against a decision under the 2008 Act, the Supreme Court had “power to determine any question necessary to be determined for the purposes of doing justice in” such an appeal. On any appeal where the judgment was wholly or partly closed, the Supreme Court

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson appoints Vicky Tomlinson as Head of Independent Health and Care

DWF—five appointments

DWF—five appointments

DWF further strengthens major injury and casualty offering with new partner and four directors from DAC Beachcroft

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis strengthens Grimsby child care team

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll