Search for: "State v. Lord"
Results 201 - 220
of 3,605
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
15 Apr 2014, 9:52 am
The post Case Comment: R (Reilly & Anor) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions appeared first on UKSCBlog. [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]
8 Feb 2021, 8:21 am
Despite its ruling, Court of Appeal accepted the basic principle in R (L) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2009] UKSC 3 (at [45] per Lord Hope) that neither imperative takes precedence over the other. [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]
19 Jan 2012, 10:09 am
In a unanimous ruling the Court held that the UK could not lawfully deport Abu Qatada to his native Jordan, overturning the House of Lords (who had unanimously come to the opposite conclusion in RB (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKHL 10, [2010] 2 AC 110).” Full story UK Human Rights Blog, 19th January 2012 Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com [read post]
19 Jan 2012, 10:09 am
In a unanimous ruling the Court held that the UK could not lawfully deport Abu Qatada to his native Jordan, overturning the House of Lords (who had unanimously come to the opposite conclusion in RB (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKHL 10, [2010] 2 AC 110).” Full story UK Human Rights Blog, 19th January 2012 Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com [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]
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]
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]
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]
21 Aug 2010, 12:00 am
STATE v. [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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
