Search for: "Word v. Lord"
Results 201 - 220
of 2,054
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Aug 2021, 2:23 am
In Lord Stephens’ leading judgment, the Respondents’ position was affirmed. [read post]
2 Aug 2021, 4:30 am
Here is Justice Thomas in his own words and votes.A. [read post]
29 Jul 2021, 3:50 am
Greg Lambert 6:21 Oh, my lord. [read post]
21 Jul 2021, 3:33 am
On 9 March 2021, the Supreme Court heard the appeal in R (on the application of Fylde Coast Farms Ltd (formerly Oyston Estates Ltd)) v Fylde Borough Council. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 2:46 am
Lord Leggatt discusses whether clear words are needed to restrict valuable rights. [read post]
15 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
R. v. [read post]
14 Jul 2021, 6:46 am
The Court of Appeal decision The lead judgment, with which Lord Justices Phillips and Moylan agreed, was given by Lord Justice Males. [read post]
12 Jul 2021, 4:04 am
In Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board*** the Supreme Court confirmed this in a strongly worded judgment. [read post]
9 Jul 2021, 2:35 am
In other words, the courts will generally accept the judgment of the legislature or the executive that a difference of treatment is appropriate in that field, unless it is manifestly unreasonable. [read post]
4 Jul 2021, 6:41 am
Pix Credit: The Apotheosis of George Washington; US Capitol Building Washington DCThe 4th day of July has been set aside in our Republic for the celebration of the signing of the Declaration of Independence by the members of the Second Continental Congress at that moment in rebellion against the authority of the King in Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland, whose subjects they then were. [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 2:00 am
That is not a gloss on the statutory wording; it merely gives full weight to the use of the word “would” rather than, for example, “might”. [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 1:51 am
Secondly, it is clear from the wording and structure of paragraphs 47 to 51 of Lord Hoffmann’s speech that he regarded the dealing requirement as an essential element of the tort. [read post]
1 Jul 2021, 8:46 am
Briefly, in the matter of M.A. v. [read post]
1 Jul 2021, 2:50 am
Prompted by the existence of the Lords Communications and Digital Committee Inquiry into Freedom of Expression Online, this piece aims – without any great expectation of success – to dispel some of the fog. [read post]
29 Jun 2021, 4:00 am
Cases like Murdoch v Murdoch, [1975] 1 SCR 423, Rathwell v Rathwell, [1978] 2 SCR 436, Pettkus v Becker, [1980] 2 SCR 834, and Sorochan v Sorochan, [1986] 2 SCR 38 worked their way to the Supreme Court of Canada. [read post]
26 Jun 2021, 2:59 am
This is one of the issues in the case Facebook v Voxer [2021] EWHC 1377 (Pat). [read post]
25 Jun 2021, 3:48 am
The minority (Lord Stephens and Lord Briggs) would have dismissed Libya’s appeal on the first issue. [read post]
24 Jun 2021, 6:30 am
By my rough count, the two volumes have about a thousand words a page, and about 1250 total pages, for about a million-and-a-quarter words in all. [read post]
22 Jun 2021, 1:14 am
Prompted by the existence of the Lords Communications and Digital Committee Inquiry into Freedom of Expression Online, this piece aims – without any great expectation of success - to dispel some of the fog. [read post]
18 Jun 2021, 2:58 am
Lord Burrows and Lord Leggatt agree that the appeal should be dismissed but each explain in their own words how they understand SAAMCO and its application to the facts of this case. [read post]
