Search for: "State v. Lord"
Results 2081 - 2100
of 3,609
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Oct 2017, 12:05 am
The duplication was made manifest, rather than avoided, by the fact each expert repeatedly stated that he agreed with passages in the other expert's reports. [read post]
23 Apr 2018, 1:00 am
R (Stott) v Secretary of State for Justice, heard 18 Jan 2018. [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 11:00 am
Court of Session Judge Lord Drummond Young rules lawyer had his ‘human rights’ breached by Law Society over complaint row. [read post]
30 Oct 2011, 2:42 pm
In this context, we should do well to remember the caution sounded by Lord Scarman in Quazi v. [read post]
10 Dec 2014, 8:49 am
In Warger v. [read post]
29 Sep 2014, 8:29 am
On October 8, in Warger v. [read post]
27 Jun 2019, 12:00 am
Investment Corp. v. [read post]
3 Sep 2018, 8:24 am
The case was heard before Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lady Black and Lord Lloyd-Jones on 18 Oct 2017. [read post]
21 Feb 2007, 9:39 am
(Lord Evershed, M. [read post]
27 Sep 2020, 7:08 am
The case at issue was an opposition to an application of a mark combining the sign “V” with words “Valentino Rudi” by the Italian high end fashion company Valentino. [read post]
7 Sep 2022, 4:00 am
Action4Canada v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2022 BCSC 1507 (CanLII) [71] Put simply, individuals have standing to question whether state actions infringe their Charter protected rights. [read post]
12 Feb 2018, 1:00 am
R (Stott) v Secretary of State for Justice, heard 18 Jan 2018. [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 2:30 am
On the first day Pill LJ ruled that the evidence from the recent “Panorama” programme about Lord Ashcroft was inadmi [read post]
27 Oct 2011, 9:41 am
Perhaps this is especially so as both cases had been heard by the House of Lords, applying the ECHR, and in both instances the source of the human rights violation was primary legislation (i.e. ostensibly the matter had been fully debated by Parliament). [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 3:35 pm
However, in principle, the question of negligence is a matter for the Claimants to establish but the question of inevitability is, as stated in Manchester Corp v Farnworth for Thames Water to establish. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 3:35 pm
However, in principle, the question of negligence is a matter for the Claimants to establish but the question of inevitability is, as stated in Manchester Corp v Farnworth for Thames Water to establish. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 11:35 pm
Lord Triesman v UTV Media (GB), 9 Dec 2010. [read post]
2 Aug 2021, 4:30 am
In Fisher v. [read post]
8 Aug 2015, 4:27 am
Lord Templeman stated: “My Lords, twin-tape recorders, fast or slow, and single-tape recorders, in addition to their recording and playing functions, are capable of copying on to blank tape, directly or indirectly, records which are broadcast, records on discs and records on tape. [read post]
28 Jul 2012, 5:56 am
John Cooper QC was brought in for the final appeal before the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge. [read post]
