Search for: "Hackney v. Hackney"
Results 141 - 160
of 212
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Aug 2011, 5:53 pm
In Alleman v. [read post]
23 Aug 2011, 7:50 am
Calibra Pictures, LLC v. [read post]
14 Aug 2011, 12:06 pm
" The subsequent turf wars over who paid for destitute asylum seekers arguably included such cases as Westminster CC v NASS [2002] 1 WLR 2956, [2002] UKHL 38, W v Croydon, A v Hackney [2007] 1 WLR 3168, [2007] EWCA Civ 266, R v Wandsworth LBC ex p O [2000] 1 WLR 2539, R (Mani) v Lambeth LBC [2002] EWCA Civ 836, and, of course, M v Slough BC [2008] UKHL 52 (our report here) and R (Zarzour) v LB of Hillingdon [2009] EWCA Civ… [read post]
14 Aug 2011, 12:06 pm
" The subsequent turf wars over who paid for destitute asylum seekers arguably included such cases as Westminster CC v NASS [2002] 1 WLR 2956, [2002] UKHL 38, W v Croydon, A v Hackney [2007] 1 WLR 3168, [2007] EWCA Civ 266, R v Wandsworth LBC ex p O [2000] 1 WLR 2539, R (Mani) v Lambeth LBC [2002] EWCA Civ 836, and, of course, M v Slough BC [2008] UKHL 52 (our report here) and R (Zarzour) v LB of Hillingdon [2009] EWCA Civ… [read post]
12 Aug 2011, 4:12 am
After all, in V for Vendetta Londoners turned out en masse to watch Parliament being destroyed. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 11:39 pm
Broadway Investments Hackney Ltd -v- Grant [2006] This case has a rather confusing history, however it was basically about whether a mixed business and residential letting was a business one or a residential. [read post]
16 Jun 2011, 1:20 am
The District Judge followed Hackney LBC v Findlay (our report) and applied the CPR 39.3(5) checklist. [read post]
16 Jun 2011, 1:20 am
The District Judge followed Hackney LBC v Findlay (our report) and applied the CPR 39.3(5) checklist. [read post]
17 May 2011, 12:54 pm
We've seen reports of a case called R (Ambrose) v City of Westminster (Admin Court 13 May 2011. [read post]
17 May 2011, 12:54 pm
We've seen reports of a case called R (Ambrose) v City of Westminster (Admin Court 13 May 2011. [read post]
26 Apr 2011, 8:30 am
CPR 39.3 applied, as the hearing that Ms P had not attended was a trial, but in any event 39.3(5) should be applied by analogy even if it was not a trial (LB Hackney v Findlay). it is strongly arguable that Mrs Pritchard did not apply promptly to set aside the order of 31st January 2011. [read post]
26 Apr 2011, 8:30 am
CPR 39.3 applied, as the hearing that Ms P had not attended was a trial, but in any event 39.3(5) should be applied by analogy even if it was not a trial (LB Hackney v Findlay). it is strongly arguable that Mrs Pritchard did not apply promptly to set aside the order of 31st January 2011. [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 2:29 am
Hackney, 2011 Ohio 1801, 2011 Ohio App. [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 3:16 am
Last, we come to State v. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 6:00 am
Henderson v [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 2:25 am
Hackney London Borough Council v Findlay [2011] EWCA Civ 8; [2011] WLR (D) 7 “Where a court had made an order for possession against a tenant in his absence, on an application to set aside that order under CPR r 3.1 the court should take all the circumstances into account under r 3.9, where the tenant could show for the purposes of r 39.3(5) that he had acted promptly when he found out about the possession order, had a good reason for not attending the trial and had a… [read post]
21 Jan 2011, 1:18 pm
Hackney Jr. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 4:48 pm
London Borough of Hackney v Findlay [2011] EWCA Civ 8 This was the Court of Appeal hearing of an appeal on the issues raised in Forcelux v Binnie [2009] EWCA Civ 854 [Our report here], specifically the Court’s ability to set aside a possession order under CPR 3.1(2)(m) as opposed to the more restrictive provisions in CPR 39.3. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 4:48 pm
London Borough of Hackney v Findlay [2011] EWCA Civ 8 This was the Court of Appeal hearing of an appeal on the issues raised in Forcelux v Binnie [2009] EWCA Civ 854 [Our report here], specifically the Court’s ability to set aside a possession order under CPR 3.1(2)(m) as opposed to the more restrictive provisions in CPR 39.3. [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 10:55 pm
TTM (By his Litigation Friend TM) v London Borough of Hackney, East London NHS Foundation Trust; Secretary of State for Health – Read judgment The Court of Appeal has ruled that the local authority, but not the detaining hospital, was liable to pay compensation to a person who had been unlawfully detained under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. [read post]
