Search for: "Lord v. State" Results 2181 - 2200 of 4,051
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Apr 2010, 4:22 pm by NL
There was already a possession order and, on the state of the law at that time (pre Knowsley HT v White in the House of Lords), there could be no legitimate expectation of getting an assured tenancy as the AST would have been ended. [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 3:10 am by Francis Davey
Unsurprisingly, in my view, in the light of Lord Justice Nichols famous dictum in Lloyds Bank Plc v Rosset [1989] 1 Ch 350 (a case with many similar features): "There was, I repeat, physical presence on the property by the wife and her agent of the nature, and to the extent, that one would expect of an occupier having regard to the then state of the property: namely, the presence involved in actually carrying out the renovation necessary to make the house fit for… [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 3:10 am by Francis Davey
Unsurprisingly, in my view, in the light of Lord Justice Nichols famous dictum in Lloyds Bank Plc v Rosset [1989] 1 Ch 350 (a case with many similar features): "There was, I repeat, physical presence on the property by the wife and her agent of the nature, and to the extent, that one would expect of an occupier having regard to the then state of the property: namely, the presence involved in actually carrying out the renovation necessary to make the house fit for… [read post]
16 Jan 2016, 1:41 am by INFORRM
  In doing so, he referred to the leading authority Proctor v Bailey(1889) 42 Ch 390, which states that “… an injunction is granted for prevention, and where there is no ground for apprehending the repetition of a wrongful act there is no ground for an injunction“. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 9:54 pm by Simon Gibbs
The second school of thought, and one that has found increasing favour in recent years, is that a party may be deprived of costs in relation to a head of claim on which they have lost and regardless of whether they were “unreasonable” in pursuing that head: • In AEI Ltd v Phonographic Performance Limited [1999] 1 WLR 1507, Lord Woolf MR stated at 1523H: “…it is no longer necessary for a party to have acted unreasonably or improperly to be… [read post]
10 May 2016, 7:56 am by Sally-Ann Underhill
He stated that “In a case like the present, the parties have made their own law by contracting, and can in principle un-make or re-make it”. [read post]
7 Mar 2012, 7:15 am by emagraken
Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458 at paragraph 16: …Causation need not be determined by scientific precision; as Lord Salmon stated in Alphacell Ltd. v. [read post]
27 Jun 2009, 8:42 pm
He cites Lord Scarman's views expressed in his opinion in R v. [read post]
11 Mar 2016, 5:34 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
The Christian Institute & Ors v The Lord Advocate (Scotland), heard 8-9 March 2016. [read post]
15 May 2012, 2:02 pm by 1 Crown Office Row
Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 2 A.C. 167 andPinnock adopted. [read post]
In their submissions to the Expert Group, the Scottish Government and the Lord Advocate had called for appeals to the Supreme Court in criminal cases to be ended altogether, so Salmond was no doubt hoping that this is what the Review Group (headed by Lord McCluskey) would recommend.  [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 2:25 pm by NL
The Court of Appeal noted that it was extremely unlikely that the draughtsman of the 1995 Act had used the term enjoyment in a more extensive manner than that set out by the House of Lords in Southwark London Borough Council v Tanner & Others [2001] 1 AC. [read post]
30 Jun 2017, 11:52 am by Guest Contributor
But Lord Justice Atkins’ conclusion on this limb of the case highlights the near-impossibility, at least in the present state of authority, of doing anything about it if a final look shows the result to be unjust. [read post]