Bank Mellat’s $4bn A1P1 claim gathers pace

UK getting it wrong – being liable to pay damages under the Human Rights Act!

UK Human Rights Blog

bank_MellatBank Mellat v HM Treasury [2015] EWHC 1258 (Comm), Flaux J, 6 May 2015, read judgment

Two recent judgments underscoring the potential high cost of the UK getting it wrong in its dealing with businesses and hence being liable to pay damages under the Human Rights Act for breach of its A1P1 obligations. Regular readers will know that A1P1 is the ECHR right to peaceful enjoyment of property.

The first case was the photovoltaics case of Breyer, all about reducing renewables subsidies unfairly: see my post of last week here. The second, this case, involves a much more direct form of impact, namely the Treasury’s direction under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 that no-one else should have any commercial dealings with Bank Mellat, because, the Treasury said, the Bank had connections with Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programme. 

Bank Mellat’s challenge got to the Supreme Court: see judgment and my post

View original post 2,013 more words


About Sabine Kurjo McNeill

I'm a mathematician and system analyst formerly at CERN in Geneva and became an event organiser, software designer, independent web publisher and online promoter of Open Justice. My most significant scientific contribution is
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Bank Mellat’s $4bn A1P1 claim gathers pace

  1. T Birks says:

    Good post, I didn’t know that and I suspect millions of other people don’t .. why do people vote for our evil, corrupt and incompetent politicians. .. and they tell you it’s a democracy.

  2. peter oakes says:

    Yes, and Michael Gove. is replacing Chris Grayling in the justice??? dept. his first job
    is to get rid of the Human Rights Act. !

    You all know about the Human Rights we have not got ! and never had!

  3. Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee says:

    The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 Section 2 and the Senior Courts Act 1981 Section 31 (4) does allow to bring a Private Law Claim on a Judicial Review

    The European Communities Act 1972 Section 2 (1), 3 (1) is a Conservative Parliament Act.
    The Members of the Conservative Party who suggests that this Act should be repealed, are In Contempt of the Sovereign.

    The Human Rights Act 1998, This is a Labour Party Government Act-
    The Members of the Labour Party this does include Harriet Harman QC and Lord Falconer QC and The Officers in the London Borough of Newham Council and Waltham Forest Council have breached this Act.

    The Metropolitan Police and the Independent Police Complaints Commission have also failed to record the crime when the Crime has been reported to them and no Investigations had been carried out.
    It is either due to conflict of Interests- Bad Faith and Misfeasance in Public Office.

    There is a Judgment given in the Court of Appeal of Misfeasance in Public Office against the London Borough of Hackney Council.

    The Judgment given in the Court of Appeal should apply to any Minister of the Crown.

    The Treasury Solicitors who have changed their Name as to Government Legal Advice-
    As they shall be the same Officers, whilst the Legal Secretary to the Chancellor of the High Court is a Civil Servant, as there can’t be fair hearing for Litigant in Persons.

    The Former Chancellor of the High Court through his Legal Secretary had issued a Letter that If Legal Proceedings had to be taken against than Mr Justice Park, than the Application Notice shall be placed before another High Court Judge. There is no separate Order drawn and Sealed with a Reference Number. This does cause some Injustice.

    As the Chancellor of the High Court has no Power to nominate a High Court Judge when a Section 42 of the SCA 1981 Order is made.
    as there is a difference between a Civil Restraint Order without the approval of the Parliament on the 25th July 2003,
    and the Interim Order made on the 31st July 2003 in the CO/3208/2003
    and 8th December 2003.

    There is a Legal Right to make an application for Compensation under Section 107 and 108 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (As amended)

    There is Silent Fraud in the United Kingdom-
    The House of Lords Judgment:

    Newbury District Council Respondent
    Secretary of State for the Environment Appellant
    Newbury District Council Respondent
    International Synthetic Rubber Co Ltd Appellant.

    The Bar Council by their Servants Agents and Legal Representatives they do have the Knowledge but they do want their members to benefit from the Proceeds of Unlawful Conduct.
    The Time Limit under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is a Period of 20 Years,
    They can’t reduce the Time Limit and make their own Rules.

    Yours Faithfully

    Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s