The High Court’s Justice Mitting rejected a challenge by the bank to the order last June and this was upheld by two of three judges at the Court of Appeal last Thursday.
The order was approved by Parliament in October 2009; there is now a European Union measure in place which imposes similar restrictions on the bank. It stops all financial institutions from doing business with it.
Evidence was given that the restrictions cost the bank $25 million a year, and 183 million euros ($240 million) controlled by the bank was effectively frozen.
Bank Mellat, which denied it financed any activities proscribed by the UN Security Council, claimed the order was unlawful because the bank had no opportunity to make representations prior to the order and therefore did not have a fair hearing.
Lord Justice Maurice Kay ruled that although the Treasury did not have proof that the bank had financed a weapons program, this was not a prerequisite for issuing an order. He said the trial court had found “a rational connection” between the bank and a financial route to help finance the nuclear program. “A contrary conclusion would resonate with naiveté,” said Lord Justice Kay.
He added: “In my judgment, this is a case in which it is established that the most effective measure is the most intrusive one but that is justified by the very high value of the legitimate aim, namely minimizing the risk of very great harm to vital national interests.”
His views were endorsed by Lord Justice Pitchford, who said: “When what is at stake is the risk of finance by a United Kingdom-based bank (deliberate or unconscious) of the nuclear or missile program of an unfriendly state, it seems to me that the urgency of interim preventative measures, such as that specifically provided by Parliament in the present case, is obvious.”
Lord Justice Elias disagreed that the Treasury was not in breach of procedural obligations when making the order. He said the Treasury had failed to comply with principles of fairness and human rights issues.
