Search for: "State v. Lord"
Results 201 - 220
of 3,588
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jul 2008, 1:04 pm
Van Colle (administrator of the estate of GC (deceased)) and another (Original-Respondents and Cross-appellants) v Chief Constable of the Hertfordshire Police (Original Appellant and Cross-respondent) Smith (Respondent) v Chief Constable of Sussex Police (Appellant) [2008] UKHL 50 (30 July 2008) Caldarelli (Appellant) v Court of Naples (Respondent) (Criminal Appeal from her Majesty's High Court of Justice) [2008] UKHL 51 (30 July 2008) R (on the application of M) (FC)… [read post]
10 Dec 2013, 7:35 am
Lord Wilson stated that he could “countenance somewhat more readily than does Lord Brown” the possibility that refusal to disclose the requested information interfered with art 10. [read post]
29 Dec 2017, 8:00 am
Even so, Lord Carnwath acknowledged that had the CFR been held to apply interesting questions would have arisen under art 21. [read post]
20 Jan 2016, 7:00 am
Of interest to constitutional lawyers, the Court embarked upon a detailed consideration of an earlier decision in Quark Fishing Ltd v UK, App. [read post]
23 Nov 2011, 3:00 am
A reference of a devolution issue at the request of the Lord Advocate on the issue of waiver of the right to legal assistance. [read post]
27 Mar 2011, 3:29 am
On Monday 28 March, Peter Stewart v The Queen will be heard by Lord Rodger, Lady Hale, Lords Brown, Kerr and Dyson. [read post]
7 Jul 2011, 8:53 am
He stated (at paragraph 39) that: "the only principle to be extracted from Payne v. [read post]
21 Aug 2010, 12:00 am
STATE v. [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 1:32 am
In Abdulaziz v Apex [2014] UKSC 64 Lord Neuberger stated that while it would be “wrong in principle for this court to refuse to entertain an appeal against a decision simply because it involved case management and the application of the CPR”, both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal should be “very diffident about interfering” with the decisions of their respective lower courts. [read post]
12 Dec 2022, 7:46 am
” This is Lord Briggs introduction to his judgment in Guest v Guest and this also summarises the facts at issue. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 8:44 am
Not since R (Baiai) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 53 (where foreign nationals were required to obtain the Secretary of State’s permission to get married) has there been such an obvious case of a disproportionate immigration measure. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 8:44 am
Not since R (Baiai) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 53 (where foreign nationals were required to obtain the Secretary of State’s permission to get married) has there been such an obvious case of a disproportionate immigration measure. [read post]
13 Aug 2013, 11:56 pm
The post Case Comment: R (AA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 49 appeared first on UKSC blog. [read post]
11 Mar 2020, 5:43 pm
The panel will be Lord Reed, Lord Wilson, Lord Briggs, Lady Arden and Lord Kitchin. [read post]
22 Jan 2013, 5:21 am
(See Rogers v. [read post]
23 Feb 2018, 8:45 am
(ii) Lord Sumption His Lordship found “formidable difficulties” with the counterfactual assumption underpinning the first hypothesis. [read post]
8 Apr 2011, 11:25 am
House disguised as a Barn In Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor v Welwyn Hatfield BC [2011] UKSC 15 Lord Hope describe the actions of Mr Beesely thus: "Frankly, the dishonesty involved in this case is so far removed from almost anything else that I have ever encountered in this area of the law that it appears to constitute a category all of its own. [read post]
8 Apr 2011, 11:25 am
House disguised as a Barn In Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor v Welwyn Hatfield BC [2011] UKSC 15 Lord Hope describe the actions of Mr Beesely thus: "Frankly, the dishonesty involved in this case is so far removed from almost anything else that I have ever encountered in this area of the law that it appears to constitute a category all of its own. [read post]
6 Dec 2016, 1:45 am
Lord Pannick QC says it is no answer for the Government to say that the long title to the 1972 Act “says nothing about withdrawal“. 16:04: Lord Pannick QC refers to the case of Robinson v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, which he submits supports a “flexible response” to constitutional developments. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 8:46 am
The lawfulness of the cap was addressed by the Supreme Court in R (SG & Ors) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKSC 16. [read post]
