Search for: "Halford v. Halford"
Results 1 - 20
of 25
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jan 2023, 6:20 am
Halford, No. [read post]
5 Jul 2022, 5:27 pm
The Fordice decision came down after the US Supreme Court further liberalized abortion access in Casey v. [read post]
5 May 2021, 9:07 am
Lloyd relied Halford v. [read post]
20 Dec 2019, 12:56 pm
Halford, No. [read post]
20 Sep 2017, 8:03 am
In its decision, the ECHR considered and distinguished – but did not overrule – Halford v UK and Copland v UK on various case-specific facts. [read post]
17 Jan 2017, 4:41 pm
Firstly, the existing case law on surveillance of private correspondence in the workplace is not adequately tailored to the facts in Bărbulescu: in Halford v. [read post]
17 Jan 2016, 3:55 am
The cases below were referred to in the Court’s judgment: – Halford v the United Kingdom (25 June 1997), which concerned an office landline designated for personal use. [read post]
25 Jun 2015, 8:18 am
Halford, 50 M.J. 402 (C.A.A.F. 1999)); (4) whether the witness has been asked for specific conclusions or their opinion about the truth or falsity of another’s statements or allegations, or about whether a crime occurred (United States v. [read post]
7 Nov 2013, 8:29 am
I’ve just been reading Ahmed and others v Mahmood and others [2013] EWHC 3176 (QB) (Lawtel only I think) and I’m totally confused. [read post]
7 Nov 2013, 8:29 am
I’ve just been reading Ahmed and others v Mahmood and others [2013] EWHC 3176 (QB) (Lawtel only I think) and I’m totally confused. [read post]
14 Mar 2013, 4:00 am
In order to be non-essential, it must be found not to be essential under both questions.[354] This interpretation is consistent with the approach taken by the Federal Court of Appeal in Halford v. [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 5:20 am
The unusual situation of a judge in a civil case deciding whether a party is guilty of murder has arisen before: in Halford v Brookes ([1992] P.I.Q.R. [read post]
21 Dec 2011, 4:59 am
However, in Stephens v Halfords PLC, the Claimant was dismissed for posting critical comments on a company Facebook page following plans by Halfords to restructure, which would have meant working longer hours. [read post]
25 Nov 2011, 5:40 am
The 1972 case of Hanover Insurance Company v. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 4:03 am
Compare this decision with that given in Stephens v Halfords Retail PLC a few months ago, where comments made by an employee about the proposed restructuring were not sufficient to warrant dismissal for gross misconduct. [read post]
28 Jul 2011, 12:00 am
A recent case (Stephens v Halfords Retail plc, unreported) reminded employers that blind reliance on a social media policy to dismiss a member of staff will not be enough. [read post]
12 Jul 2011, 4:30 am
In 1997, Strasbourg court was critical of UK interception law in the case of Halford v The United Kingdom (20605/92) [1997] ECHR 32. [read post]
12 Jul 2011, 1:36 am
In 1997, Strasbourg court was critical of UK interception law in the case of Halford v The United Kingdom (20605/92) [1997] ECHR 32. [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 6:12 pm
Given this footnote in Halford, that’s one trend I won’t be following. ____________________________________ [1]It was only thirty-six years ago, inGoldfarb v. [read post]
27 Mar 2011, 1:00 am
As the recent (unreported) case of Stephens v Halfords PLC has shown, merely having a policy is not a magic panacea in itself. [read post]
