- Cited — Peiris, R (on the application of) v First-Tier Tribunal & Ors 2023-12-21
“…[2014] AC 700…”
- Applied — Daniel Richard Jwanczuk v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2023-10-11
“… the issue by reference to the four questions identified by Lord Reed at para. 74 of his judgment in Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (no 2)[2013] UKSC 39, [2014] AC 700. It concluded that justification had not been established: see paras. 95-100. It made it clear that the test that it was applying was whether the application o…”
- Cited — Star China Media Limited, R v The Office of Communications 2023-07-14
“…nalty. That approach would have been an appropriate “less intrusive measure” of the kind suggested at [20] by Lord Sumption in Bank Mellat v.HM Treasury (No 2) [2014] AC 700 (Bank Mellat).…”
- Cited — Re A (Parental Responsibility) 2023-06-16
“…[2013] UKSC 39, [2014] AC 700, that the test for justification…”
- Cited — Re A (Parental Responsibility) 2023-06-16
“…uirements of proportionality in the human rights context are now well established: see eg the decision of the Supreme Court in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2014] AC 700, para 20 (Lord Sumption JSC) and para 74 (Lord Reed JSC).…”
- Cited — Helen Timson, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2023-06-09
“…arlier: see para 45), fairness will usually require that to be done where that is feasible for practical and other reasons. In Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2014] AC 700, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC (after having cited at para 178 the above passage from Ex p Doody) said, at para 179:…”
- Cited — SHARON GREEN v THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS 2022-12-21
“…Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2014] AC 700, para 20…”
- Applied — Lisa Smith v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities & Anor. 2022-10-31
“…hen the court considers an attack of that kind, the general test to be applied is that set out by Lord Reed in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39; [2014] AC 700 at [74]:…”
- Cited — The Executors of HRH Prince Philip, The Duke of Edinburgh (Deceased) v Guardian News and Media 2022-07-29
“…Reed discussed exceptions to the principle of open justice ranging from the year 1693 through to Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (Liberty Intervening) [2013] UKSC 38,[2014] AC 700. At paragraph [29], Lord Reed set out Lord Neuberger’s description in Bank Mellat of the principle as “fundamental to the dispensation of justice in a modern, …”
- Considered — Aviva Insurance Limited v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2022-01-14
“…ust comply with the principle of legality, pursue a legitimate aim, and be proportionate. In Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No.2) [2013] UKSC 38 and 39; [2014] AC 700 the Supreme Court considered a substantive issue about whether a 2009 Order should be quashed for infringement of A1P1, together with a procedural issue about …”
- Cited — Harry Miller (R on the application of) v The College of Policing 2021-12-20
“…interference with Article 10(1) rights is to be justified, it must meet the well-known four-part test identified in Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) [2014] AC 700. As I have said, there is no issue between the parties in respect of the first two parts of that test.…”
- Followed — National Union of Professional Foster Carers v The Certification Officer 2021-04-16
“…123-127 of its judgment. At para. 123 it summarises the well-known four-fold analysis suggested by Lord Reed in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury(no 2) [2013] UKSC 39, [2014] AC 700. At para. 124 it says that it follows from its conclusions as regards legitimate aim that “the measure in question is rationally connected to sufficiently impo…”
- Cited — Turani & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2021-03-15
“…n in this context; nor is any criticism made of the Judge’s adoption of the four-stage test described by Lord Reed in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury [2013] UKSC 38, [2014] AC 700 at [74]. Further, it is common ground that the burden of establishing justification is on a respondent decision-maker and not a claimant. It is open to respond…”
- Applied — Bridges, R (On the Application Of) v South Wales Police 2020-08-11
“…er the interference of AFR Locate with Article 8(1) satisfied the four-part proportionality test in Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39, [2014] AC 700. Having accepted that it was appropriate, when applying the third and fourth criteria in the context of the facts of the present case, to apply a close standar…”
- Cited — Bridges, R (On the Application Of) v South Wales Police 2020-08-11
“…“If an interference with Article 8(1) rights is to be justified it must meet the four-part test in Bank Mellat v Her Majesty's Treasury (No 2) [2014] AC 700, namely:…”
- Cited — Hoareau & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Foreign And Commonwealth Affairs 2020-07-30
“…e issue which the decision determines”. The approach in Bugdaycay is reflected in the judgment of Lord Reed in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No.2) [2013] UKSC 39, [2014] AC 700, at paragraphs 69-70 and Lord Sumption in R (Lord Carlile of Berriew QC) v SSHD [2014] UKSC 60, [2015] AC 945, at paragraph 20 where Lord Reed’s statement that…”
- Followed — The Secretary of State for the Home Department v R (on the application of) Joint Council for The Welfare of Immigrants 2020-04-21
“…In Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39; [2014] AC 700 at [74], Lord Reed JSC helpfully formulated the test for justification in four questions, as follows:…”
- Followed — Drexler, R (On the Application Of) v Leicestershire County Council 2020-04-07
“…elf that the test for justification for a difference of treatment is the well-known four-fold test set out in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No. 2) [2013] UKSC 39; [2014] AC 700: see in particular paras. 20 (Lord Sumption JSC) and 74 (Lord Reed JSC). Swift J posed the four questions which need to be addressed as follows: (1) is the dif…”
- Cited — K (Forced Marriage: Passport Order) (Rev 2) 2020-02-21
“…ects (and, in part, adopts) what Lord Reed JSC said, when dealing with proportionality, albeit in a very different context, in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2014] AC 700. I propose to quote only the last two elements he identified when setting out that its "attraction as a heuristic tool is that, by breaking down an assessment …”
- Doubted — AR & SXC, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2020-01-29
“…ge test in conventional proportionality cases and referred to the well-known decision of the Supreme Court in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No. 2) [2013] UKSC 39; [2014] AC 700, which was a case about Article 6 and A1P1 and not Article 14; but, when his judgment is read fairly and as a whole, there can be no doubt that he did have in …”
- Cited — Dulgheriu & Anor v The London Borough of Ealing 2019-08-21
“… essentially a question of whether a fair balance has been struck between the competing rights and interests: Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No. 2) [2013] UKSC 39, [2014] AC 700, at [20]. That latter question arises in a particularly acute form in a case, such as the present, where there is a tension between different ECHR rights.…”
- Cited — Langford v The Secretary of State for Defence 2019-07-17
“…r Quila) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (AIRE Centre intervening) [2012] 1 AC 621, para 45, Lord Sumption JSC in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2014] AC 700, para 20 and Lord Reed JSC in Bank Mellat, at para 74. As Lord Reed JSC said:…”
- Cited — Ngole, R (on the application of) v The University of Sheffield 2019-07-03
“…The judge approached this assessment in accordance with the four stages summarised by Lord Sumption JSC in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2014] AC 700. That the objective of the University’s decision is sufficiently important to justify the limitation of a fundamental right was not in dispute.…”
- Cited — Campaign Against Arms Trade, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for International Trade 2019-06-20
“…the Home Department v Rehman [2003] 1 AC 153 at [50] and [57], A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 2 AC 68 at [29], Bank Mellat v HM Treasury [2014] AC 700 at [93] and Harrow Community Support Limited v. Secretary of State for Defence [2012] EWHC 1921 (Admin) at paragraph [24], the Divisional Court stated at parag…”
- Cited — SC & Ors, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Work And Pensions & Ors 2019-04-16
“…See Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39; [2014] AC 700, para 74 (Lord Reed). Put more shortly, the question at step four is whether the impact of the right’s infringement is disproportionate to the likely benefit o…”
- Approved — SC & Ors, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Work And Pensions & Ors 2019-04-16
“…sulting in differential treatment has been approved by Parliament and, if so, with what degree of scrutiny. In Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39; [2014] AC 700, para 44, Lord Sumption observed that:…”
- Cited — Balajigari v The Secretary of State for the Home Department 2019-04-16
“…er), fairness will usually require that to be done where that is feasible for practical and other reasons. In Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (no. 2) [2013] UKSC 39, [2014] AC 700, Lord Neuberger (after having cited at para. 178 the above passage from Doody) said, at para. 179:…”
- Followed — Ward & Ors, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Hillingdon & Ors 2019-04-16
“…rect approach to justification of indirect discrimination is to follow the structure described by Lord Reed in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39, [2014] AC 700 at [74]:…”
- Cited — Bank Mellat v HM Treasury 2019-03-15
“…, made by HMT in October 2009 and held unlawful by the Supreme Court, by a majority, in 2013: Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No. 2) [2013] UKSC 38; [2013] UKSC 39; [2014] AC 700.…”
- Cited — KV, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2018-11-08
“…sment should have to be conducted using the formal four stage test of proportionality adopted in cases such as Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39; [2014] AC 700, para 74, it will necessarily involve a balancing exercise and a judgment as to whether in all the circumstances deprivation of citizenship is proportionate.…”
- Cited — Pham v The Secretary of State for the Home Department 2018-09-20
“…e court has to find the least restrictive and invasive means of achieving the purpose of the legislation. So in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013 UKSC 39; [2014] AC 700, it was not just a question of punishing the defendants but of halting something which was harmful for the United Kingdom.…”
- Applied — Browne v The Parole Board of England & Wales 2018-09-20
“…. In other words, the appellants contend that the four-stage test identified by Lord Sumption and Lord Reed in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39, [2014] AC 700, paras 20 and 74 should now be applied in place of rationality in all domestic judicial review cases.…”
- Cited — Re X (A Child : FGMPO) (Rev 2) 2018-07-31
“…ects (and, in part, adopts) what Lord Reed JSC said, when dealing with proportionality, albeit in a very different context, in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2014] AC 700. I propose to quote only the last two elements he identified when setting out that its “attraction as a heuristic tool is that, by breaking down an assessment …”
- Cited — JT v First-Tier Tribunal 2018-07-24
“…stification remains one of proportionality. The canonical formulation of that test is now that of Lord Reed in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39; [2014] AC 700, para 74, where he identified the assessment of proportionality as involving four questions:…”
- Cited — JT v First-Tier Tribunal 2018-07-24
“…er a fair balance has been struck between the rights of the individual and the interests of the community: see Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39; [2014] AC 700, para 20 (Lord Sumption).…”
- Cited — A & Anor. v Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority & Anor. 2018-07-03
“… case, a statutory instrument has been reviewed by Parliament, Lord Sumption’s observations in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 38; [2013] UKSC 39; [2014] AC 700, at [44], are very much in point:…”
- Cited — Conway, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice & Ors 2018-06-27
“…lair Collis Ltd) v Secretary of State for Health [2012] QB 394, especially at para 239 (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury MR), and Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No. 2) [2014] AC 700, 795-796, paras 93-94, per Lord Reed. Indeed, it can do so in a case where the truth is inherently unknowable, as Lord Bingham thought it was in R (Countryside…”
- Approved — DA & Orss, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2018-03-15
“… challenge had been approved by affirmative resolutions by both Houses of Parliament (see the observations of Lord Sumption in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No.2) [2014] AC 700, para.44); and second, the fact that issues in the appeal had been specifically discussed in Parliament. As Lord Bingham of Cornhill observed in R (Countryside…”