- Cited — Daniel Richard Jwanczuk v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2023-10-11
“…[2013] UKSC 39,…”
- Cited — Re A (Parental Responsibility) 2023-06-16
“…[2013] UKSC 39, [2014] AC 700, that the test for justification…”
- Cited — Helen Timson, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2023-06-09
“…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.…”
- Applied — Lisa Smith v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities & Anor. 2022-10-31
“… in PPTS 2015. When 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 Motherhood Plan (R on the application of) v HM Treasury 2021-11-24
“…In Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No.2)[2013] UKSC 39, [2015] 1 WLR 1449, (at para. 74), Lord Reed structured the assessment of proportionality in four distinct elements:…”
- Followed — National Union of Professional Foster Carers v The Certification Officer 2021-04-16
“…ality at paras. 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 su…”
- Cited — Page v NHS Trust Development Authority 2021-02-26
“…e used requires an assessment of proportionality, as classically expounded in the decision of the Supreme Court in Bank Mellat v Her Majesty's Treasury (no. 2) [2013] UKSC 39, [2014] 1 AC 700, (see para. 20 of the judgment of Lord Neuberger). It is a sufficient summary for present purposes to say that that involves balancing the int…”
- Applied — Bridges, R (On the Application Of) v South Wales Police 2020-08-11
“…uestion of whether 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 …”
- Cited — Hoareau & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Foreign And Commonwealth Affairs 2020-07-30
“…he gravity of the 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…”
- 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
“… J directed himself 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:…”
- Doubted — AR & SXC, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2020-01-29
“…out the four-stage 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 …”
- Cited — B (Secure Accommodation Order), Re (Rev 1) 2019-11-21
“…in domestic, EU and ECHR law. Perhaps the clearest exposition of the principles is to be found in the judgment of Lord Reed in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No.2) [2013] UKSC 39 at paragraphs 68 to 76. At paragraph 70, he observed:…”
- Cited — Dulgheriu & Anor v The London Borough of Ealing 2019-08-21
“…ociety, which is 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 EC…”
- 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 l…”
- Approved — SC & Ors, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Work And Pensions & Ors 2019-04-16
“…r the measure resulting 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
“…ave quoted earlier), 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
“…und that the correct 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
“…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 — KV, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2018-11-08
“…y that the assessment 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 p…”
- Applied — Browne v The Parole Board of England & Wales 2018-09-20
“… AC 295, para 51. 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 — JT v First-Tier Tribunal 2018-07-24
“… the test for justification 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
“… is to ask whether 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
“…s 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:…”
- Cited — Neumans LLP v The Solicitors Regulation Authority 2018-03-02
“…ry 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:…”