Brick Court Chambers

News & Events

‘One of the super-sets’, Brick Court Chambers is ‘an all-round strong’ set with ‘a large selection of high-quality competition law specialists’, ‘top commercial counsel’, ‘an excellent chambers for banking litigation’, and a ‘go-to’ set for public administrative law.
The Legal 500 2020
The clerks’ room ‘sets the benchmark’ for other sets with its ‘friendly, knowledgeable, and hardworking’ clerks.
The Legal 500 2020
"An outstanding commercial set with a track record of excellence across its core areas of work."
Chambers & Partners 2018
"A set that is singled out for its "first-rate" clerking and "client service-oriented, commercial approach."

Judge grants government a closed hearing in sanctions judicial review

30/07/14

Five Iranian individuals were included on the European Union’s restrictive measures (sanctions) relating to Iran in December 2011 on the basis of a proposal from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office in the UK stating that each of them was a “senior member” of the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Line (IRISL).  IRISL and all of these individuals (among others) won their applications to the General Court of the European Union to annul their designations.  The five individuals whose listing resulted from the UK listing proposal brought judicial review proceedings challenging the Secretary of State’s decision to propose that for EU designation, claiming damages for losses suffered as a result of the listing proposal.

The Secretary of State applied for a declaration under section 6 of the Justice & Security Act 2013 for an order that the judicial review should be heard in a closed material procedure (CMP) in which the Secretary of State could rely on sensitive material that would not be shown to the claimants.  Mr Justice Bean has just granted that application, in R (Sarkandi) & Ors v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs [2014] EWHC 2359 (Admin).  He rejected the claimants’ argument that the sensitive material was irrelevant because it could not lawfully be relied on by the Secretary of State to justify the listing proposal, that the Secretary of State had not properly considered whether an application for public interest immunity and/or “gisting” would suffice, and that the case could not fairly be tried in a closed hearing.  The Judge gave the claimants permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The judgment is here.

Maya Lester appeared for the Claimants, and also for the applicants in IRISL v Council  and Nabipour v Council, instructed by M Taher & Co.  Analysis of these cases and links to the judgments are on the blog she co-writes, www.europeansanctions.com