英国法院已经完全不同意上诉人的情况下对不同的司法管辖区，认为由al-Khawaja tahery V英国和欧洲人权法院的理由（2009）49企业人力资源风险1没有在各种诉求提供了描述性标志的研究。
The Court of UK had completely disapproved the appellants’ case against the various jurisdictions, holding that the justification by the European Court of Human Rights in Al-Khawaja and Tahery v United Kingdom (2009) 49 EHRR 1 did not provide descriptive indications of the findings in the various appeals made.
McCluskey (2011) suggested that one of the key findings in the case was the denial of the Supreme Court to comply and move in accordance with the Strasbourg jurisdiction as completely binding to the words as ‘made into consideration’. The refusal to follow this jurisdiction mainly could be visualized as penning down the United Kingdom completely against the Strasbourg. It is not justified if the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court will be considered and taken for granted the very next moment an identical case comes up against the court of Law, needs to be witnessed.
Yet another finding that was considered was the law that is completely paradoxical which ultimately led to a weak justification of the evidence which was not a result in a jurisdiction that was being worked upon. Several evidences were damned that is most likely to arrive at a conclusion even with the lack of relevant evidences that were part of the case that was not being included. It was recommended that this proceeding did not make relevance and that the efficient systems did not include several important evidences.