Search for: "Hale v. Harm"
Results 181 - 200
of 226
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 May 2011, 12:30 pm
There were a number of incidents of self harm. [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 5:17 am
The Court of Appeal today gave judgment in the case of ETK v News Group Newspapers Ltd ([2011] EWCA Civ 439). [read post]
8 Apr 2011, 12:00 am
WL was a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo who was convicted of a number of offences in the UK including assault occasioning actual bodily harm and inflicting grievous bodily harm. [read post]
7 Apr 2011, 2:58 pm
Penguin Group v. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 3:43 am
Lumba, a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo, was convicted of a number of offences in the UK including assault occasioning actual bodily harm and inflicting grievous bodily harm. [read post]
17 Mar 2011, 9:15 pm
United States v. [read post]
2 Mar 2011, 2:00 am
”); Hale v. [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 8:53 am
Baroness Hale made clear that the question for the local authority (following on from Birmingham CC v Ali – our note here) is essentially about the future, ie the probability of the acts continuing in the future (“This is the limiting factor. [read post]
26 Jan 2011, 3:24 am
Yemshaw (Appellant) v London Borough of Hounslow (Respondent) [2011] UKSC 3 – Read judgment / press summary The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that “domestic violence” in section 177(1) of the Housing Act 1996 includes physical violence, threatening or intimidating behaviour and any other form of abuse which, directly or indirectly, may give rise to the risk of harm. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 4:06 am
Goodyear v. [read post]
29 Nov 2010, 8:53 am
Miller v. [read post]
22 Nov 2010, 3:37 pm
Ms Hashi's expert insisted that there were both category A and B hazards; Birmingham's only that there were Category B hazards (Band D) but that there was a "probability of 'harm through stress and lack of personal space". [read post]
22 Nov 2010, 3:37 pm
Ms Hashi's expert insisted that there were both category A and B hazards; Birmingham's only that there were Category B hazards (Band D) but that there was a "probability of 'harm through stress and lack of personal space". [read post]
10 Nov 2010, 9:59 pm
The reality is that in most cases where an individual has been convicted of a serious specified offence the risk of harm to children or vulnerable adults thereafter will be non-existent (because the person is in prison) or small (because the person is subject to supervision within the community). [read post]
29 Sep 2010, 6:21 am
., LLC v. [read post]
24 Sep 2010, 9:15 am
For more see Looking Ahead to TiVo v. [read post]
24 Aug 2010, 5:13 am
App. 1990), and Gasque v. [read post]
23 Aug 2010, 5:42 am
Branham v. [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 10:27 am
[Post by Venkat] Buckles v. [read post]
17 Jul 2010, 2:11 am
To rely on the defence, the defendant must show, first, that that there is a real public interest in communicating and receiving the information (Jameel v Wall Street Journal [2006] UKHL 44 [147], Baroness Hale). [read post]
