header-logo header-logo

12 February 2016
Issue: 7686 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Terrorism

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
back-to-top-scroll