header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
12 February 2016
Issue: 7686 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Terrorism

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Youssef v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2016] UKSC 3, [2016] All ER (D) 209 (Jan)

The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal in respect of a decision made by the respondent secretary of state in September 2005, in his capacity as a member of the United Nations Security Council Sanctions Committee, which removed the hold the UK had previously placed on the appellant’s designation by the Sanctions Committee. The court ruled on, among other things, issues concerning the tests to be applied in judging the legality of the decision and their consequences under domestic law.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
NLJ this week: Where would we be without limitation?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll