Iran sanctions: disclosure of information under ECHR

08 January 2015
Author: JHA

A bank challenging financial restrictions affecting it was entitled to disclosure of sufficient information about the allegations against it to enable it to give effective instructions to special advocates in a closed hearing.

The Claimant bank applied pursuant to section 63 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 to set aside financial restriction decisions affecting it in the Financial Restrictions (Iran) Orders 2011 and 2012, which restricted the access of Iranian banks to UK financial markets. The Defendant had relied on material which it was not prepared to disclose since it would breach national security to do so. The Defendant argued that the standard of disclosure required by the decision of the House of Lords in Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No 3) ([2010] 2 AC 269) did not apply and that there was no requirement in this case to disclose the details of allegations to the Claimant where the interests of national security required secrecy.

This approach was rejected by the judge who was persuaded that Article 6.1 of the ECHR required disclosure that met the requirements of AF (No 3). While the Claimant’s liberty was not affected in the same way as an individual, the utterly damaging effect on its ability to function was material and its exclusion from London as a major centre for financial institutions was particularly damaging.

Bank Mellat v HM Treasury [2014] EWHC 3631 (Admin), 5 November 2014

Return to List of Articles by UK Lawyers on Tax Disputes, Tax Litigation, HMRC Tax Appeal Return to Listings
Left Button on Tax Dispute & Tax Litigation Lawyers in London

Our Insights

Insights from UK Tax Dispute Lawyers & HMRC Tax litigation

Armour Veterinary Group v HMRC – Warning for Partnership Personnel Changes?

In this decision, the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (“FTT”) dismissed an appeal against discovery assessments which disallowed amortisation relief claimed by the Appellant company for three types of goodwill acquired from a partnership. The decision examined the applicability of each of the circumstances set out in s882 CTA 2009 before concluding none of them had been satisfied. It also provided guidance on the meaning of carrying on a business pursuant to s884 CTA 2009. In rejecting the appeal, the FTT reached a number of key conclusions:

  1. partners can potentially rebut the presumption that individual partners do not own the goodwill of the business (in whole or part) by expressly recording the division in a partnership agreement;
  2. whether a partner is an equity or salaried partner has no bearing on whether they can be treated as carrying on the business for the purpose of s884;
  3. when determining whether and when a partner carries on a business, the FTT will consider, inter alia, (1) if they are in a partnership as per the definition in s1 of the Partnership Act 1890 and (2) their role in the day-to-day running of the practice;
  4. a fundamental aspect of the self-assessment regime is that taxpayers must ensure that they retain adequate records (backed up by an external valuation as relevant in the case of a goodwill transfer) sufficient to support the information provided in their returns, including evidence to support claims made for relief.

Read More
Insights from UK Tax Dispute Lawyers & HMRC Tax litigation

One minute with Helen McGhee

https://www.taxjournal.com/articles/one-minute-with-helen-mcghee-Helen McGhee provides an overview of the “hot topics” currently impacting the world of tax.

Read More

Right Button on Tax Dispute & Tax Litigation Lawyers in London