Bank Mellat v HM Treasury $4bn Litigation Slated for October

The Bank Mellat Iranian sanctions litigation, which has been through both the UK Supreme Court and the European Union Court of Justice, is now going back to the High Court to deal with the damages claim. The claim is for $4 billion; the largest claim made against HM Treasury, and is slated to begin in October.

Bank Mellat Case History:

Bank Mellat is the largest private bank in Iran. In 2009, it was sanctioned by Her Majesty’s Treasury, under the Financial Restrictions (Iran) Order, pursuant to the powers granted to it by the 2008 Counter-Terrorism Act. The 2009 Order prohibited UK financial institutions from having any business relationship with Bank Mellat.

Bank Mellat challenged the 2009 Order on the ground that it violated its rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, including its rights to property and right to a fair trial. In the High Court, Justice Mitting dismissed both the procedural and substantive challenges to the order, and Bank Mellat lost its subsequent appeal before the Court of Appeal before the case was taken finally to the Supreme Court. For the Supreme Court proceedings, Bank Mellat changed its legal team. Stephenson Harwood were substituted by Zaiwalla & Co.

The dispute was heard by the General Court before going to the ECJ, where it was held that Bank Mellat was not a state-owned bank – the Council had not been able to accurately verify the extent to which the state had any shareholding in the bank, nor was it the case that the bank was supporting nuclear proliferation. The EU Council was ordered to cover both its own and Bank Mellat’s costs for the proceedings.

Returning to the UK, for the first time the Supreme Court held a closed material procedure, much to the vexation of Lord Neuberger, who said that the decision to hold the secret session was taken “with great reluctance.” Mr Zaiwalla also spoke out strongly against the use of secret courts, remarking in one interview from the time that “justice conducted behind closed doors with evidence hidden from view is no kind of justice at all.”

The court supported Bank Mellat’s procedural as well as substantive challenge against HM Treasury. The majority held that the mere existence of a statutory provision for effective judicial review did not excuse the Treasury’s common law duty of fairness. The judges also held that, as the Order was directed against individuals, the Treasury was obligated to provide prior notice for representations to be made. It was also decided that Bank Mellat had been irrationally singled out, and that the elimination of its business in London was a disproportionate response to the Treasury’s stated goals. The Supreme Court ordered HM Treasury to pay Bank Mellat’s costs and it remitted the case to the High Court for the assessment of damages caused to Bank Mellat as result of the 2009 Order.

Prospects for Proceedings in November 2017:                                                                                                                               

Following the Supreme Court Judgement, Bank Mellat is seeking damages worth $4 billion. A damages hearing has been scheduled for November 2017 at which the court will assess the Bank’s damages. Bank Mellat appreciates that the UK courts are prepared to courageously uphold the rule of law against actions taken by Western executive bodies. As the first series of cases to conclude in favour of an Iranian business in relation to Western sanctions, one suspects that further Iranian corporations will look to submit damages claims as the nation begins to reintegrate itself into the global economy.

(Source: Zaiwalla & Co.)

  1. Alan says

    I am so confused as when the court will decide if bank melat is eligible to receive compansations for its unjust and illegal sanction as the two hi European and English court described it. On top of the article there is an October 2016 hearing about the damage claime and on the bottom it talks about November 2016 and interesting enough a lawyer wrote this article. So when is it: October 2016 or November 2017??

    1. Richard Rossington says

      The damages hearing will take place November 2017.

      1. Alan says

        What is October hearing about then?
        In less than two months there is a hearing and if it is not about damages hearing, then what is it??
        No one else talks about November 2017 and it seems to be far off for a hearing.

        1. Richard Rossington says

          There is not a hearing in October, the litigation is to begin in October.

          1. Alan says

            What r the chances 1) they settle the case and if YES, when do u see that?
            2) bank melat wins but a lot less than four billion ?
            and 3) bank melat loses and receives nothing?

  2. Alan says

    Could it also be that in order to avoid litigation , HM treasury settle the case before October?
    What is the prospect of bank melat success ?
    My believe is that a sealed settlement is the most probable outcome.

  3. Alan says

    Messages guess these so called “hi end lawyers” don’t even wanna speculate about my comments!! Kinda weird

  4. Johnny says

    Alan, no worry man
    Soon the litigation court will put more news out but since pretty much all news positive for the bank, I’ll see a happy ending.

  5. Wynne says

    October almost finished but no word of litigation !!! Was it only a hoax?

  6. Johnny Smith says

    I guess lawyer monthly gave up on updating since October was litigation time but no word.

  7. Alan says

    Bank Mellat v HM Treasury – the bank is suing for losses arising out of a 2009 Treasury order which prohibited UK financial institutions from doing business with the bank due to its alleged links with Iran’s nuclear programme. The trial starts in October

  8. Sohrab says

    There wasn’t even a litigation hearing.

  9. Johhny says

    Just read that the court has ruled against Bank e melt some time ago and with respect to legal fees of close to $22000 US and that it also demanded from the Bank e melat to provide the court with the clients names which was rejected outright by the bank. One wonders if this case will be dropped.

  10. Alan says

    November 2017 has passed and nothing happened yet the lawyer on this forum was saying otherwise

Leave A Reply