- Cited — InterDigital Technology Corporation & Ors v OnePlus Technology (Shenzen) Co & Ors 2023-02-17
“…l Uclaf v ICI[1990] RPC 45 (see paragraph 23 of Mitsubishi); and of the Supreme Court in Al-Rawi and others v Security Service (JUSTICE and others intervening) [2011] UKSC 34 (see paragraphs 24-26 of Mitsubishi). At paragraph 27 of Mitsubishi, after quoting a passage from Lord Dyson in Al-Rawi (paragraph 64), Floyd LJ noted:…”
- Cited — Promontoria (Oak) Ltd v Nicholas Michael Emanuel & Anor. 2021-11-18
“…access to it so that they can make submissions on it as they think fit. This is required by the principle of “equality of arms” (see Al Rawi v Security Service [2011] UKSC 34) and the right to a fair trial in the determination of a person’s civil rights and obligations conferred by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Right…”
- Cited — Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd & Ors v Mitsubishi Electric Corporation & Anor 2020-11-19
“…In 2011 Al-Rawi and others v Security Service (JUSTICE and others intervening) [2011] UKSC 34; [2011] 3 WLR 388 reached the Supreme Court. That case was concerned with whether, absent statutory intervention, a civil court could operate a “closed materia…”
- Cited — Arkin v Marshall 2020-05-11
“…In Al-Rawi v. Security Service [2011] UKSC 34, [2012] 1 AC 531, Lord Dyson said at [22] that “[t]he basic rule is that (subject to certain established and limited exceptions) the court cannot exercise its …”
- Considered — Regen Lab SA v Estar Medical Ltd & Ors 2020-03-24
“…iples of natural justice to take steps based on material which one side has not been able to deal with: seeAl Rawi and others v The Security Service and others [2011] UKSC 34. If Regen seriously considered that it had uncovered material which was relevant to the outcome of the appeal, it is all the more astonishing that it did not l…”
- Cited — Singh, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department 2019-06-18
“…It is a basic rule that the court must exercise its power to regulate its procedure in a way which respects that principle: see e.g. Al Rawi v Security Service [2011] UKSC 34; [2012] 1 AC 531, para 22.…”
- Cited — Neumans LLP v The Solicitors Regulation Authority 2018-03-02
“…e of the power and an opportunity to respond: see R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 at 560; Al Rawi v Security Service [2011] UKSC 34 at [89]. In Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No. 2) [2013] UKSC 39 Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury said:…”