Search for: "Eady v. State" Results 181 - 200 of 284
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Nov 2014, 4:06 pm by INFORRM
Johnson v Steele, heard 29 October 2014 (Sir David Eady). [read post]
4 Nov 2014, 3:40 am by Charlie Tomlinson, Olswang LLP
” Lord Neuberger also raised the question of whether anonymous speech is even capable of protection in the Internet age, and remarked on Mr Justice Eady’s conclusions in Author of a Blog v Times Newspapers Ltd [2009] EWHC 1358 (QB), that bogging is a public activity with no reasonable expectation of privacy. [read post]
14 May 2015, 12:57 am by INFORRM
  For example, in Quinton v Peirce & Cooper ([2009] EWHC 912 (QB)), where a DPA claim was added to libel and malicious falsehood claims, Eady J said: “I must now turn to the Data Protection Act. [read post]
14 Feb 2016, 4:02 pm by INFORRM
On the same day Dingemans J gave judgment in Lokhova v Tymula ([2016] EWHC 225 (QB))(heard 26 and 27 January 2016). [read post]
25 Jul 2016, 2:05 am by INFORRM
On the same day Sir David Eady refused a number of applications in the case of Otuo v Morley. [read post]
29 Oct 2017, 5:31 pm by INFORRM
There was also a costs hearing in the case of Decker v Hopcraft before Sir David Eady. [read post]
1 Mar 2015, 4:18 pm by INFORRM
United States In the case of Simorangkir v Courtney Love Cobain the Court of Appeal of the State of California dismissed an appeal by Courtney Love seeking to have the case dismissed under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. [read post]
5 Jul 2015, 4:38 pm by INFORRM
On 30 June 2015 judgment was handed down by Sir David Eady in the cases of Ma v St George’s Healthcare Trust ([2015] EWHC 1866 (QB)). [read post]
14 May 2012, 4:33 am by INFORRM
On 10 May 2012, Eady J handed down judgment in the case of Hunt v Times Newspapers [2012] EWHC1220 (QB). [read post]
7 Jul 2024, 5:13 am by Frank Cranmer
The High Court agreed in R (Harrison) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin) that the current lack of provision for legal humanist weddings in England and Wales was in breach of Article 9 ECHR. [read post]
3 Dec 2024, 3:44 am by Frank Cranmer
Comment Dismissing the claim in Harrison, Eadie J concluded her judgment like this: “128. [read post]
27 Mar 2018, 4:15 pm by INFORRM
  At Mr Mosley’s privacy trial in 2008, Mr Justice Eady determined that there was no public interest in the exposé. [read post]
14 May 2010, 9:02 am by INFORRM
” This passage is substantially similar to paragraph 50 in the first instance decision by Eady J in McKennitt v Ash which was approved by the Court of Appeal in that case in December 2006. [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 12:05 am by INFORRM
Hutcheson (formerly known as “KGM”) v News Group Newspapers, heard 24 May 2011 (Master of the Rolls, Etherton and Gross LJJ) Caplin v Associated Newspapers Ltd, heard 26 May 2011 (Sharp J) Lord Ashcroft v Foley & ors, heard 7-8 June 2011 (Eady J) [read post]
25 Nov 2010, 4:08 pm by INFORRM
This is in line with one of the “limiting principles” in the law of breach of confidence, as stated in the Spycatcher litigation (Attorney-General v Observer Ltd [1990] 1 AC 109 HL) that the law would not protect the trivial or the anodyne. [read post]
4 Dec 2011, 4:04 pm by INFORRM
Cooper v Turrell, heard 24 November 2011 (Tugendhat J) McKeown v Attheraces Ltd, heard 28 November 2011 (Eady J) Phillips v NGN, heard 28 and 29 November 2011 (Judge CJ, Neuberger MR, Kay V-P) El-Naschie v Macmillan, heard 11, 14, 16 to 18,  21, 22, 25, 28-30 November, 1 -2 December 2011 (Sharp J) Also on Inforrm last week News: Defamation in Israel – are the proposed amendments to the law objectionable? [read post]
18 Jan 2016, 1:03 am by INFORRM
On 15 January 2016 Sir David Eady heard an application in the case of McGrath v Bedford. [read post]
8 Nov 2015, 4:08 pm by INFORRM
On 6 November 2015, Sir David Eady heard applications in the case of Otuo v Morley. [read post]
26 Oct 2017, 4:52 am by INFORRM
In Lockton v Persons Unknown and Google Inc [2009] EWHC 3423 (QB). the court questioned whether it had jurisdiction to make an order against a company based in the United States without a place of business in England. [read post]