- Cited — Helen Timson, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2023-06-09
“…p of contacting claimants would not render the TPD process impossible or impractical, which would be a ground for not doing this, see Bank Mellat v HM Treasury [2013] UKSC 38; [2013] UKSC 39. At most it would elongate the process of making a decision.…”
- Cited — The Executors of HRH Prince Philip, The Duke of Edinburgh (Deceased) v Guardian News and Media 2022-07-29
“…f A v BBC Lord 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…”
- Considered — Aviva Insurance Limited v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2022-01-14
“… with property rights must 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 p…”
- Cited — The Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food And Rural Affairs 2021-05-11
“… This discrimination resembled the irrational discrimination between Iranian banks which was held to be unlawful in Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 38; 39; [2014] 1 WLR 700. The Judge’s reasoning was cursory and perfunctory. It did not meet the exacting standard of reasoning which was set in Bank Mellat. The …”
- Cited — Turani & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2021-03-15
“… to justification 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 …”
- Cited — Bank Mellat v HM Treasury 2019-03-15
“…an Order 2009 (“the 2009 Order”), 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 — A & Anor. v Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority & Anor. 2018-07-03
“…straint where, as in the present 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:…”