Mellat v Her Majesty's Treasury (Rev 1)
The standard of disclosure described and applied by the House of Lords in AF (No 3) [2009] 3 WLR 74 applies; the Treasury must provide sufficient disclosure to enable Bank Mellat to give effective instructions about the essential allegations against it. The Judge applied the correct test and the appeals are dismissed.
- Parties
- Applicant/respondent: Bank Mellat; Respondent/appellant: Her Majesty’s Treasury; Intervener: IRISL (Intervening party); Special Advocates: Special Advocates
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 04 May 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court (queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court)
- Outcome
- Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Disclosure Obligations, Article 6 ECHR (fair Trial), Closed Material Procedures, Counter Terrorism Act 2008, Financial Restrictions
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Bank Mellat
Applicant/respondent
Her Majesty’s Treasury
Respondent/appellant
IRISL (Intervening party)
Intervener
Special Advocates
Special Advocates
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court (queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the standard of disclosure required of Her Majesty’s Treasury is the same as that required of the Home Secretary under Article 6 ECHR as interpreted in AF (No 3) [2009] UKHL 28
- 2 Whether the Judge applied the disclosure requirements correctly in this case
Ratio Decidendi
The standard of disclosure described and applied by the House of Lords in AF (No 3) [2009] 3 WLR 74 applies; the Treasury must provide sufficient disclosure to enable Bank Mellat to give effective instructions about the essential allegations against it. The Judge applied the correct test and the appeals are dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed
Orders
- The standard of disclosure as described in AF (No 3) applies to this case.
- No further orders; both appeals dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment