Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 2561 - 2580
of 4,051
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Dec 2019, 1:30 pm
Teresa Ward v LB Hillingdon. [read post]
8 Nov 2022, 3:21 pm
" Truax v. [read post]
10 Feb 2012, 7:00 am
The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law, but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself. [read post]
13 Jun 2010, 11:00 pm
Morley & Ors, R. v [2010] EW Misc 9 (EWCC) (11 June 2010) – Read judgment Four former Members of Parliament have failed in their initial bid to claim parliamentary privilege in criminal proceedings arising from the parliamentary expenses scandal. [read post]
18 Dec 2011, 4:11 pm
Statements in Open Court and Apologies Media interest in privacy injunctions was revived with Imogen Thomas’ statement in open court in the case of CTB v NGN, which stated the claimant footballer had accepted there was no basis to accuse her of blackmail. [read post]
13 Nov 2013, 3:13 pm
Chandler v. [read post]
8 Mar 2012, 11:00 am
Lord Roger, with whom Lord Walker and Lord Collins agreed, was also content to ground his understanding of persecution in a right that does expressly exist within international human rights law. [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 1:44 pm
Sighted this morning, breaking the surface just off the Strand, the judgment of Mr Justice Arnold in MedImmune v Novartis [2011] EWHC 1669 (Pat) certainly fits the legend.In characteristic style, the judgment is as comprehensive as one would wish. [read post]
11 Mar 2011, 7:53 pm
“If James Watt made more law than Lord Coke,” says the author in a moment of unwarranted exhilaration, “then the Wright Brothers outdid James Watt” (p. v); it is hardly convincing proof of this to find the cases on air law referring to such old friends as Gibbons v. [read post]
31 Jul 2011, 12:16 am
– Judith Townend Case Law: CTB v News Group Newspapers: privacy law and the judiciary – Edward Craven Privacy law: the super-injunction is dead Case Law: Mosley v United Kingdom: pre-notification rejected by Strasbourg – Hugh Tomlinson QC Case Law: Goodwin v NGN – Privacy, Intrusion and Novelty – Mark Thomson Case Law: Thornton v Telegraph Media Group, an offer of amends defence fails – Hugh Tomlinson QC Finally, we remind… [read post]
4 Apr 2011, 5:34 pm
This reflects the current law as stated in Chase v News Group Newspapers ([2002] EWCA Civ 1772). [read post]
5 Feb 2022, 4:37 pm
The Judge stated that in order to succeed with the summary judgment application, the [read post]
14 Mar 2021, 7:24 pm
I do not believe that the standard of care required of a medical practitioner has been more clearly or succinctly stated than by Lord Hewart C.J. in Rex v. [read post]
3 Jul 2009, 2:57 pm
This conclusion is, moreover, consistent with the dicta of the House of Lords in Al-Skeini and the position adopted by the Government in that case before the Court of Appeal and House of Lords (see paragraph 62 above).89. [read post]
25 Dec 2022, 2:14 am
United States. [read post]
3 Aug 2016, 8:05 am
The sole exception appears to be where the applicant is close to dying and there is insufficient care available in the returning country to enable the applicant to die with dignity: N v Secretary of State for Home Department [2005] UKHL 31; [2005] 2 AC 296 and N v UK (2008) 47 EHRR 885. [read post]
7 Nov 2021, 4:41 pm
United States Smartmatic, [read post]
11 Mar 2010, 4:10 pm
After reviewing the precedent cases (Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (a firm) [2002] 2 AC 1, Stuart v Goldberg Linde (a firm) [2008] 1 WLR 823 ) and noting that it would be "wrong to hold that because a matter could have been raised in earlier proceedings it should have been, so as to render the raising of it in later proceedings necessarily abusive" (Lord Bingham in Johnson), and the Art 6 entitlement to access to justice for an arguable case, the Court of Appeal… [read post]
23 Jan 2024, 2:32 am
On 19 December 2023, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in The NOCO Company v Shenzhen Carku Technology Co., Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 1502. [read post]
11 Mar 2010, 4:10 pm
After reviewing the precedent cases (Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (a firm) [2002] 2 AC 1, Stuart v Goldberg Linde (a firm) [2008] 1 WLR 823 ) and noting that it would be "wrong to hold that because a matter could have been raised in earlier proceedings it should have been, so as to render the raising of it in later proceedings necessarily abusive" (Lord Bingham in Johnson), and the Art 6 entitlement to access to justice for an arguable case, the Court of Appeal… [read post]
