Amendment #22 from Lib Dem Lords Clement-Jones and Razzall, if adopted, would add to the bill…

“any person aggrieved may apply to the court on notice to the copyright owner and service provider to require the service provider to remove or vary the nature of the block; and

... the court must order that the block be removed if it considers that it would not have made such an order”

These and other amendments are due for Lords debate after 2.30pm on Monday. But they would seem to allow for a kind of injunction ping-pong, as copyright holders and then blocked sites (or fans of blocked sites) lodge their respective wishes with the High Court.

More amendments proposed to the controversial new clause…

—#14: Copyright holders who would seek a High Court injunction compelling ISPs to block infringing websites must first inform the ISP and website (ie. ISPs would then have the opportunity to voluntarily block the site before going to court).

—#16, #19: Before granting such an injunction, the High Court must consider “the extent to which granting the injunction would disproportionately not consider “any issues of national security raised by the Secretary of State”

—#21: A U-turn on costs - whereas the blocked website would have had to pay the court costs of the copyright holder which sought the blocking injunction, now this would be up to the court to decide.