Search for: "People in Interest of LJ"
Results 221 - 240
of 337
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Dec 2011, 2:09 am
There was a second question to be decided by the Supreme Court, though, and for the lawyers this is arguably the more interesting part of the decision. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 8:35 am
The landowner’s fallback answer, raising the A1P1 point, was more interesting. [read post]
4 Dec 2011, 4:04 pm
We will post a case comment on this interesting decision shortly. [read post]
1 Dec 2011, 10:16 am
What social evil or corrosion of the rule of law that state of affairs engenders is an interesting issue to ponder, but was not one which this judgment could or did answer. [read post]
27 Nov 2011, 4:02 pm
The Wall Street Journal has published extracts from an interesting debate asking ‘How Much Should People Worry About the Loss of Online Privacy? [read post]
17 Nov 2011, 8:23 am
” Jackson LJ, 5 September 2011, Cambridge. [read post]
15 Nov 2011, 3:50 am
Policy-makers and the people who elect them on the other hand are primarily concerned by the problem viewed impersonally and en masse. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 3:54 am
It is of interest that the Court felt it necessary to follow the view of the Trial Judge in holding that had leave been refused, Melanie would not have left contrary to medical advice. [76]. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 3:44 pm
What got me through land law as a student was Gray and Symes’ textbook, Real Property and Real People. [read post]
8 Nov 2011, 6:37 am
In McCombe J’s view (with which Hallett LJ agreed), the relevant officer did reasonably suspect that if he and his colleagues carried out the search prohibited items would be found on one or more of the protestors. [read post]
6 Nov 2011, 4:05 pm
Police now believe that 5,795 people may have had their voicemails intercepted by News of the World. [read post]
6 Nov 2011, 4:49 am
Also on Friday, the Administrative Court (Moses LJ and Singh J) refuse permission to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Leveson Inquiry to refuse “core participant” status to Elaine Decoulos, who has in the past been involved in libel litigation. [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 4:47 am
If freedom of expression is to trump privacy in matters of “public interest”, do we know what the public interest is? [read post]
14 Oct 2011, 7:16 am
This contrasted with a more applicant-oriented description of the scheme given by Sedley LJ in R (Saadat) v Rent Service [2002] HLR 32: The fundamental purpose of the housing benefit scheme … is to ensure that people who are not under-occupying property and not over-paying rent are not made homeless through genuine inability to pay. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 6:02 pm
Plaintiffs cannot directly sue people for exercising their democratic right to participate in the political process, though they can frame those activities perceived to be contrary to their interests as torts.[15] Common torts that are used by plaintiffs include: defamation, inducing breach of contract, conspiracy, trespass, nuisance, and interference with contractual relations.[16] Examples of SLAPP lawsuits include framing boycotts as intentional interference with economic… [read post]
2 Oct 2011, 1:50 pm
It is of interest not least for the Court of Appeal’s view of the meaning of the funding limitations on a Public Funding Certificate.This was an application to the Court of Appeal for a stay of eviction pending determination of an application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. [read post]
29 Sep 2011, 7:23 am
Just as we were all entering a post lunch semi-vegative state, up strode Wall LJ to the podium. [read post]
28 Sep 2011, 8:17 pm
LJS: The core idea is that asymmetric information largely determines which mechanisms are used to exclude people from particular groups, collective resources, and services. [read post]
9 Aug 2011, 12:00 am
As Mummery LJ also said; as for those who complain about the time taken and the legal costs and other expenses and losses incurred, I think that they would want the hearings to be conducted in the interests of justice to both sides. [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 1:00 am
Regarding the first issue, Lord Brown, with whom Lords Dyson and Walker agreed (Lord Kerr agreed with the result but for different reasons), held that the 2009/2010 care plan reviews did include a reassessment of Ms McDonald’s care needs for the reasons given by Rix LJ in the Court of Appeal at [53], namely: “53. [read post]
