{"id":76751,"date":"2016-10-06T16:59:14","date_gmt":"2016-10-06T11:29:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=76751"},"modified":"2017-04-10T16:23:22","modified_gmt":"2017-04-10T10:53:22","slug":"where-fundamental-rights-are-interfered-with-a-proportionality-approach-to-review-is-appropriate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/10\/06\/where-fundamental-rights-are-interfered-with-a-proportionality-approach-to-review-is-appropriate\/","title":{"rendered":"Where fundamental rights are interfered with, a proportionality approach to review is appropriate"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court of United Kingdom: <\/strong>Deciding upon the issues involved in the appeal seeking a full merits review of the Foreign Secretary’s refusal to support the delisting of the claimant from the United Nations’ consolidated list of persons\u00a0 associated with terrorism,\u00a0 the 5-Judge Bench\u00a0 held that the source of the Foreign Secretary\u2019s powers under domestic law lay in the exercise of the prerogative to conduct foreign affairs so that, although the decision was not immune from judicial review, it was in an area in which the courts moved with caution. The decision was that of the Foreign Secretary, not of the UN sanctions committee, and was to be assessed by reference to his reasoning.
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

The claimant, an Egyptian national, arrived in United Kingdom in 1994 and was refused asylum by reason of his alleged membership of a\u00a0 terrorist organisation. He was convicted of terrorism, in his absence, by an Egyptian military court, probably on the basis of evidence obtained by torture. In March 2005 an undisclosed designating state, subsequently identified as Egypt, requested the Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council to add the claimant\u2019s name to the consolidated list of persons to be treated as associated with a terrorist group. The United Kingdom placed a hold on the proposed designation in order to allow the Government to consider whether he met the criteria for designation. In September 2005 the Foreign Secretary concluded, on evidence not obtained by torture, that the claimant should be included in the consolidated list and accordingly lifted the hold on listing. Consequently, the claimant\u2019s assets were frozen and he was also made subject to the European Union\u2019s sanctions regime.\u00a0 The claimant gave a bare denial of\u00a0\u00a0the sanctions committee\u2019s reasons for his listing and sought judicial review of the Foreign Secretary\u2019s lifting of the hold and his refusal to extend his grounds of support for delisting on the basis that evidence tainted by torture had been relied on by other members of the sanctions committee in making the designation. The Divisional Court of the Queen\u2019s Bench Division dismissed the claim.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that on facts, it was not shown that there was any aspect of the Secretary of State\u2019s decision which was in fact open to challenge \u201ceven applying a proportionality test\u201d. The appellant had not shown that quashing the 2005 decision \u201cwould have any substantive effect on his present position\u201d as it would not detract from the evidence in the UN Ombudsperson\u2019s report which had prompted the Secretary of State to support the claimant’s continued designation on the list. The Court emphasised that judicial review is a discretionary remedy, which does not require the court \u201cto ignore the appellant\u2019s own conduct, or the extent to which he is the author of his own misfortunes\u201d. Although the Ombudsperson\u2019s report was not formally in issue (it had only become available after the grant of permission to appeal), the fact remained that there was unchallenged evidence indicating that the appellant was a strong vocal supporter of terrorism.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0 Court also observed that since the interference with the claimant\u2019s property rights was directly and specifically authorised by Council Regulation (EC) No. 881\/2002, as amended, which was given legislative effect by the European Communities Act, 1972, there was no breach of the principle that such State interference in the exercise of prerogative powers had to be supported by statutory authority.<\/p>\n

Dismissing the appeal, Lord Carnwath, JSC (with whom Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC, Lord Mance, Lord Wilson and Lord Sumption, JJSC agreed),\u00a0 observed that “the review should be that conducted in accordance with ordinary common law principles which incorporated notions of proportionality where interference with fundamental rights was in issue; that such a test would be unlikely to lead to a different result from traditional grounds of review based on rationality, in particular where national security was involved; that a full review of the Foreign Secretary\u2019s decision on the merits was inappropriate since the Security Council had entrusted to member states, as members of the sanctions committee, the task of determining whether the designation criteria were fulfilled and it would be inconsistent with that regime for a national court to substitute its own assessment of those matters; that, had a proportionality test been applied by the Divisional Court, it would have made no difference to the outcome; and that, in any event, even if the Foreign Secretary\u2019s decision in 2005 to lift the hold had been flawed, it would not in the light of subsequent events be appropriate to grant the claimant any remedy.” The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed. [Regina (Youssef)<\/em> v.\u00a0 Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs<\/em>, [2016] 2 WLR 509<\/a> : (2016) UKSC 3, decided on January 27, 2016]<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court of United Kingdom: Deciding upon the issues involved in the appeal seeking a full merits review of the Foreign Secretary’s <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":91,"featured_media":56741,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-76751","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts"],"yoast_head":"\nWhere fundamental rights are interfered with, a proportionality approach to review is appropriate | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/10\/06\/where-fundamental-rights-are-interfered-with-a-proportionality-approach-to-review-is-appropriate\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Where fundamental rights are interfered with, a proportionality approach to review is appropriate\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court of United Kingdom: Deciding upon the issues involved in the appeal seeking a full merits review of the Foreign Secretary’s\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/10\/06\/where-fundamental-rights-are-interfered-with-a-proportionality-approach-to-review-is-appropriate\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-10-06T11:29:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-10T10:53:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1260\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"827\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/10\/06\/where-fundamental-rights-are-interfered-with-a-proportionality-approach-to-review-is-appropriate\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/10\/06\/where-fundamental-rights-are-interfered-with-a-proportionality-approach-to-review-is-appropriate\/\",\"name\":\"Where fundamental rights are interfered with, a proportionality approach to review is appropriate | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/10\/06\/where-fundamental-rights-are-interfered-with-a-proportionality-approach-to-review-is-appropriate\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/10\/06\/where-fundamental-rights-are-interfered-with-a-proportionality-approach-to-review-is-appropriate\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-10-06T11:29:14+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-10T10:53:22+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/10\/06\/where-fundamental-rights-are-interfered-with-a-proportionality-approach-to-review-is-appropriate\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/10\/06\/where-fundamental-rights-are-interfered-with-a-proportionality-approach-to-review-is-appropriate\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/10\/06\/where-fundamental-rights-are-interfered-with-a-proportionality-approach-to-review-is-appropriate\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg\",\"width\":1260,\"height\":827},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/10\/06\/where-fundamental-rights-are-interfered-with-a-proportionality-approach-to-review-is-appropriate\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Where fundamental rights are interfered with, a proportionality approach to review is appropriate\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\",\"name\":\"Saba\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Saba\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Where fundamental rights are interfered with, a proportionality approach to review is appropriate | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/10\/06\/where-fundamental-rights-are-interfered-with-a-proportionality-approach-to-review-is-appropriate\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Where fundamental rights are interfered with, a proportionality approach to review is appropriate","og_description":"Supreme Court of United Kingdom: Deciding upon the issues involved in the appeal seeking a full merits review of the Foreign Secretary’s","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/10\/06\/where-fundamental-rights-are-interfered-with-a-proportionality-approach-to-review-is-appropriate\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2016-10-06T11:29:14+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-10T10:53:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1260,"height":827,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Saba","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Saba","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/10\/06\/where-fundamental-rights-are-interfered-with-a-proportionality-approach-to-review-is-appropriate\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/10\/06\/where-fundamental-rights-are-interfered-with-a-proportionality-approach-to-review-is-appropriate\/","name":"Where fundamental rights are interfered with, a proportionality approach to review is appropriate | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/10\/06\/where-fundamental-rights-are-interfered-with-a-proportionality-approach-to-review-is-appropriate\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/10\/06\/where-fundamental-rights-are-interfered-with-a-proportionality-approach-to-review-is-appropriate\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg","datePublished":"2016-10-06T11:29:14+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-10T10:53:22+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/10\/06\/where-fundamental-rights-are-interfered-with-a-proportionality-approach-to-review-is-appropriate\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/10\/06\/where-fundamental-rights-are-interfered-with-a-proportionality-approach-to-review-is-appropriate\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/10\/06\/where-fundamental-rights-are-interfered-with-a-proportionality-approach-to-review-is-appropriate\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg","width":1260,"height":827},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/10\/06\/where-fundamental-rights-are-interfered-with-a-proportionality-approach-to-review-is-appropriate\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Where fundamental rights are interfered with, a proportionality approach to review is appropriate"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785","name":"Saba","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Saba"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":6115,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/12\/24\/court-justifies-maryam-rajavi-s-exclusion-from-the-uk-on-grounds-foreign-policy1\/","url_meta":{"origin":76751,"position":0},"title":"Court justifies Maryam Rajavi\u2019s exclusion from the UK on grounds foreign policy","author":"Sucheta","date":"December 24, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of United Kingdom - In one of the most controversial case, the Court upheld the exclusion of Maryam Rajavi, a dissident Iranian politician having close links with \u00a0Mujahedin e-Khalq \u00a0\u00a0which was justified on the grounds of foreign policy\u00a0 including concerns about the welfare of British personnel and interests\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Foreign Courts"","block_context":{"text":"Foreign Courts","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/foreigncourts\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":263738,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/15\/bloomberg-privacy-case\/","url_meta":{"origin":76751,"position":1},"title":"Bloomberg Privacy Case | Whether a person under criminal investigation can have a reasonable expectation of privacy? UKSC explains","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 15, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"United Kingdom Supreme Court: The Bench of Lord Reed, President and Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales, Lord Hamblen and Lord Stephens, held that in general, a person under criminal investigation has, prior to being charged, a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the information that relates to that investigation. Central\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":53051,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/24\/true-meaning-and-ambit-of-section-83-of-the-nationality-immigration-and-asylum-act-2002-interpreted\/","url_meta":{"origin":76751,"position":2},"title":"True meaning and ambit of Section 83 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, 2002 interpreted","author":"Sucheta","date":"June 24, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of\u00a0United Kingdom: In the matter concerning the interpretation of Section 83 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, Lord Hughes held that Section 83 can be read as a matter of language a number of ways, some are more natural than others. \u201cIn particular, Section 83 appears\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":273094,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/06\/anti-suit-injunctions-by-english-courts-an-improper-interference-in-foreign-judicial-proceedings\/","url_meta":{"origin":76751,"position":3},"title":"Anti-Suit Injunctions by English Courts: An Improper Interference in Foreign Judicial Proceedings?","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 6, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"by Tanvi Nigam\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-54-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-54-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-54-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-54-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-54-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":320212,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/17\/prince-harry-ordered-by-the-uk-hc-to-pay-90-legal-costs-to-the-home-dept\/","url_meta":{"origin":76751,"position":4},"title":"[Downgrading of Prince Harry\u2019s Security] | UK HC directs the Duke of Sussex to pay 90% of reasonable costs to the Home Department for the legal expenses incurred","author":"Editor","date":"April 17, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The instant costs order is in addition to successive series of orders passed by the English courts in the matter of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, who had stepped down from being a senior royal; thereby having his public-funded security downgraded whilst visiting the UK.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Duke of Sussex award of costs Megxit","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Duke-of-Sussex-award-of-costs-Megxit.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Duke-of-Sussex-award-of-costs-Megxit.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Duke-of-Sussex-award-of-costs-Megxit.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Duke-of-Sussex-award-of-costs-Megxit.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":92291,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/14\/the-principles-of-comity-of-nation-demand-the-indian-courts-to-respect-the-order-of-english-court-including-the-interlocutory-orders\/","url_meta":{"origin":76751,"position":5},"title":"The principles of comity of nation demand the Indian Courts to respect the order of English Court including the interlocutory orders","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"December 14, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Dealing with the scope of Section 44A CPC in relation to the execution of decrees by a foreign court, the Court said that the principles of comity of nation demand the Indian Courts to respect the order of English Court. Even in regard to an interlocutory order, Indian\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76751","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/91"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=76751"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76751\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/56741"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76751"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76751"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76751"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}