Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: February 2010

How extraordinarily kind of the Court of Appeal!  A judgement amended to satisfy the Government’s concern that a paragraph in the Binyam Mohamed decision contained findings of fact that ought to be removed. All of this done without informing the other parties, and without consulting with the other judges hearing the case.

"There are now effectively two judgments. The one released today is a watered down version of the original judgment – diluted at the request of the government, via its leading counsel, Jonathan Sumption QC. A crucial passage has been removed.

via Appeal judge watered down Binyam Mohamed torture ruling | World news | guardian.co.uk.

This is unbelievable. It is a fundamental principle of the common law that "Not only must justice be done, it must be seen to be done" (Ex Parte McCarthy). Apparently, this doesn’t apply if you’re the Master of the Rolls in which case you can reserve judgement and amend it to suit the desire of one party to the proceedings without even the need to hear the other side.

Advertisements

Early last week, the interim awards on Jurisdiction and Admissibility in Hulley Enterprises Limited (Cyprus) v. The Russian Federation ,Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation,  and Veteran Petroleum Limited (Cyprus) v. The Russian Federation were published unilaterally by Sherman & Sterling.

Collectively, these three decisions might be thought of as Yukos v Russia –  all three claimants were shells designed to hold parts of the shareholding of Yukos for the managment and staff of Yukos and all claimed for losses suffered as a result of the bankruptcy of Yukos in 2008 that was said to be  caused for reasons ultimately attributable to the Russian Federation.

Read More »