Search for: "State v. Eady" Results 201 - 220 of 285
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
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]
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]
22 Dec 2010, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
France v Freemans Solicitors & Anor [2010] EWHC 3291 (QB) – 15 Dec 2010 (Eady J). [read post]
18 Dec 2016, 4:19 pm by INFORRM
On 14 December 2016, Sir David Eady made an order under section 12 of the Defamation Act 2013 – requiring the defendant to publish a summary of his judgment in the case of Shakil-Ur-Rahman v ARY Network Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 3110 (QB). [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 2:30 am by INFORRM
The Court of Appeal (Pill and Elias LJJ and Sharp J) heard the appeal against the decision of Eady J in Ashcroft v Foley ([2011] EWHC 1710 (QB)), as reported above. [read post]
31 Oct 2010, 5:30 pm by INFORRM
Media and Freedom of Expression Law in Other Jurisdictions In Lassanah v State of New South Wales (No. 3) [2010] NSWDC 241 The New South Wales considered a claim for false imprisonment and defamation. [read post]
4 Jul 2016, 4:07 pm by INFORRM
I agree – if Kennedy and Sullivan are anything to go by, the levels are not very high (especially by comparison with damages for defamation; see Mosley v News Group Newspapers [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB) (24 July 2008) [212] (Eady J); though note also Representative Claimants v MGN Ltd [2016] 2 WLR 1217, [2015] EWCA Civ 1291 (17 December 2015)). [read post]
11 Feb 2018, 4:57 pm by INFORRM
On 30 January 2018 the Court of Appeal gave the claimant permission to appeal in the case of Butt v Secretary of State for Home Department. [read post]
15 Nov 2017, 4:09 pm by INFORRM
In Lait v Evening Standard Limited [2010] EWHC 3239 (QB), a case concerned with the parliamentary expenses scandal, Eady J had to consider capable meanings. [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 5:13 am by INFORRM
(The claimant had relied on the requirements in Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 2 AC 167 at [19]). [read post]
20 Nov 2016, 4:20 pm by INFORRM
Shakil-Ur-Rahman v Ary Network Ltd & Anor,  heard 31 October to 4 November and 7 November 2016 (Sir David Eady) Otuo v Watchtower Bible and Tract Society 8 November 2016 (Chancellor, Gloster and Sharp LJJ). [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 12:31 am by INFORRM
The adjudication states: “The article under complaint was a feature on Gary Dobson and David Norris, who had recently been convicted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. [read post]
20 Apr 2015, 2:19 am by INFORRM
  The application before Sir David Eady on 16 April 2015 in Watchtower Bible & Tract Society v Otuo was adjourned. [read post]
27 Nov 2011, 4:02 pm by INFORRM
On Sunday, Guido Fawkes released a preview of Alastair Campbell’s evidence to the Inquiry, stating that he had acquired it by “legal means”. [read post]
28 Aug 2012, 5:27 pm by INFORRM
[Week commencing 13 August] Full Fact v Evening Standard, Clause 1, 17/08/2012; Joseph Horner v The Observer, Clause 1, 16/08/2012; Mr Christopher Mackin v Daily Mail, Clause 1, 15/08/2012; Jane Hughes v The Independent on Sunday, Clause 1, 15/08/2012; Dr Yannis Alexandrides v Daily Mail, Clause 1, 15/08/2012; Mr Oliver Gray v Daily Mail, Clause 1, 15/08/2012; Alex Jarvis v Daily Mail, Clauses 3, 5, 15/08/2012; Inspired Thinking Group… [read post]
10 Jan 2011, 4:31 am by INFORRM
In Sands v The State of South Australia ([2010] SASC 340) the Supreme Court considered an application for a stay on the grounds of public interest immunity in an action for libel and misfeasance arising out of statements made in the course of a murder investigation. [read post]