The SUPREME COURT

(1) Whether the judge was correct to conclude that the 2006 Order was unlawful insofar as it applies to HAY, and whether that conclusion is consistent with the judgment of the Court of Appeal in A,K,M,Q & G v HM Treasury [2008] EWCA Civ 1187;(2) Whether the 2006 Order is unlawful because article 3(1)(b) expressly provides that its provisions apply automatically to a defined class of persons, namely all persons named on the Consolidated List maintained by the 1267 Committee; and(3) Whether the provisions of article 3(1)(b) of the 2006 Order operate contrary to a common principle of access to the court.The Respondent is 49 years of age. He is married and lives in London with his wife and four of his five children. He and his wife are Egyptian nationals. The Respondent was made subject to an Al Qaida (United Nations Measures) Order (‘AQO’) on 6th October 2005. Consequently, his bank accounts and credit cards were frozen, he is prohibited from receiving money from any source and it is an offence for anyone to give him any funds without the permission of the 1267 Committee or HM Treasury. He was supported by his wife, who was in receipt of benefits. He sought to quash the AQO on the basis that it was ultra vires section 1 of the United Nations Act 1946 and constituted a fundamental and unjustified interference with his property and privacy rights.