Search for: "GILES V US"
Results 241 - 260
of 431
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Jan 2015, 5:06 pm
The damp to the second bedroom, which could not be used for any purpose. [read post]
17 Jan 2015, 7:09 am
They let themselves in using a key. [read post]
11 Jan 2015, 1:38 pm
The Tribunal accepted this evidence and followed SSWP v Nelson and Fife Council [2014] UKUT 0525 (AAC) in finding that “the room had various physical features and drawbacks which prevented it from being used as a bedroom”, so it should not be counted under Reg B13. [read post]
3 Jan 2015, 9:56 am
Large street posters board by JCDecaux were used throughout the borough from 28 January to 10 February 2014. [read post]
28 Dec 2014, 4:12 pm
…[I]t seems to me that there must be the possibility that there was some procedure then or now capable of being used in the county court for the purpose of having that claim adjudicated upon. [read post]
23 Dec 2014, 12:48 pm
As will be clear, P (A Child: Use of S.20 CA 1989) [2014] EWFC 775 is a family law case, but one which crosses with housing law. [read post]
15 Dec 2014, 2:38 pm
The post Not quite, Minister by Giles Peaker appeared first on Nearly Legal: Housing Law News and Comment. [read post]
7 Dec 2014, 6:06 am
SSWP v David Nelson and Fife Council, SSWP v James Nelson and Fife Council [2014] UKUT 0525 (AAC) And the upshot? [read post]
7 Dec 2014, 12:02 am
From his opinion in Marbury v. [read post]
25 Nov 2014, 3:29 pm
Rather unusually, faced with one of the most coruscating High Court judgments I can recall, in AA V LB Southwark [our report here], the senior officers of Southwark Council have chosen to do neither. [read post]
15 Nov 2014, 8:06 am
No matter, let us press on. [read post]
13 Nov 2014, 9:23 pm
Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 739–46 (2008) (executive power); Giles v. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
Most warnings concern a product’s use – that if you use (or don’t use) the product in a certain way, you are likely to get hurt; and if you follow the warning, you won’t. [read post]
22 Oct 2014, 3:45 pm
(Finally) AA v London Borough of Southwark [2014] EWHC 500 (QB) This High Court judgment is remarkable in many ways, most of them worrying. [read post]
19 Oct 2014, 9:57 am
There are two room size and use decisions, and one Article 14 disability decision – although this predated the Upper Tribunal decision in CSH/188/2014. [read post]
6 Oct 2014, 2:01 pm
Thus there was no error in the Court of Appeal not using a case by case comparison. [read post]
14 Sep 2014, 5:25 pm
See Giles v. [read post]
8 Sep 2014, 3:41 pm
News has reached us of an interesting case in Bow County Court involving the right to succeed to a secure tenancy and the operation of s.103 of the Housing Act 1985: London Borough of Waltham Forest v Mahmood. [read post]
1 Sep 2014, 4:21 am
On the one hand, the reasoning in the case of R (Giles) v Parole Board [2003] UKHL 42 is in line with the Strasbourg jurisprudence. [read post]
27 Aug 2014, 4:41 am
In Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. [read post]
