Search for: "M/V LORD"
Results 241 - 260
of 913
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jul 2017, 12:45 pm
Keeler v. [read post]
11 Jul 2015, 8:01 am
This was an issue extensively explored by the House of Lords in British Leyland Motor Corp v Armstrong Patents Company Ltd [1986]albeit in the context of the 1956 Copyright Act. [read post]
6 Apr 2005, 2:10 pm
May you rest in peace Lord Barnard of Vane v. [read post]
19 Nov 2013, 2:06 am
Freedom of information boffins are fixated on Kennedy v The Charity Commission. [read post]
18 Nov 2019, 12:12 pm
As Lord Mansfield said in 1769, in the case of R. v. [read post]
22 May 2014, 8:51 am
See McCormick v. [read post]
29 Oct 2010, 3:57 am
In the present case, however, as already set out at para 21 above, M does explain how he anticipates that his private life would be affected if his identity were revealed. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 4:00 am
Byers, The Morality of Human Rights, A Secular Ground and Jeffrey M. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 2:39 am
By a majority of 4 to 1, the Court found that, in the cases of Ambrose and M, the act of the Lord Advocate in leading and relying at the trial on the evidence that was obtained from them in response to police questioning without having had access to legal advice was not incompatible with the art 6(1) and (3)(c) right; and in the case of G that it was incompatible. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 2:39 am
By a majority of 4 to 1, the Court found that, in the cases of Ambrose and M, the act of the Lord Advocate in leading and relying at the trial on the evidence that was obtained from them in response to police questioning without having had access to legal advice was not incompatible with the art 6(1) and (3)(c) right; and in the case of G that it was incompatible. [read post]
2 Sep 2009, 5:18 am
Wasa v. [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 4:02 pm
Bean J accepts that proposition (at [30], notwithdtanding Lord Scott’s contrary dicta in Cobbe. [read post]
15 Mar 2015, 9:18 am
” Lord Sumption noted that: “[m]uch of the argument advanced on behalf of Mr Catt… on this point amounted to a complaint that this material did not enable them to know precisely what data would be obtained and stored or for how long. [read post]
20 Mar 2007, 3:56 pm
Mind you, the decision by the House of Lords on deductions for compensation for wrongful imprisonment in Regina (O’Brien and Others) v Independent Assessor suggests some judicial habits of mind could do with rethinking. [read post]
12 Mar 2021, 9:57 am
In the Supreme Court's recent standing decision, Uzuegbunam v. [read post]
13 Dec 2011, 11:22 am
M/s. [read post]
31 Jan 2019, 2:37 am
The concept is still rather wooly, but the approach remains that of Lord Bingham in M v Secretary of States for Work and Pensions [2006] 2 AC 91, encapsulated by Lady Hale as “the closer the facts come to the protection of the core values of the substantive article, the more likely it is that they fall within its ambit. [read post]
13 Nov 2020, 1:45 am
A footnote can lay down a new legal rule (Hunt v R M Douglas (Roofing) [1990] 1 AC 398) but the circumstances of that case were very different. [read post]
9 Jun 2009, 10:10 am
There is some guidance as to the procedure to be adopted where the prosecuting authority seek an ASBO (see M v DPP [2007] EWHC 1032 (Admin)) but - so far as I’m aware - nothing to assist the trial Judge where she considers making an order of her own volition. [read post]
15 Sep 2011, 7:10 am
The review group, headed by Lord McCluskey, was set up by Alex Salmond after the Supreme Court decisions in Cadder v HM Advocate [2010] UKSC 43, Fraser v Her Majesty’s Advocate [2011] UKSC24 and in anticipation of the decisions in HM Advocate v Ambrose, G & M. [read post]
