Search for: "People v Lord"
Results 241 - 260
of 1,802
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jun 2010, 2:50 am
(The Knowsley argument, paralleling the finding on assured tenants on Knowsley Housing Trust v White, link to our report) ii) Brent v Knightley was wrongly decided, such that the right to apply under s.85 Housing Act 1985 survived the (ex) tenant's death iii) Such a right to apply is a possession under article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights iv) To hold that the right to apply did not survive death would be in breach of Art 1 Protocol 1 v) the… [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 2:50 am
(The Knowsley argument, paralleling the finding on assured tenants on Knowsley Housing Trust v White, link to our report) ii) Brent v Knightley was wrongly decided, such that the right to apply under s.85 Housing Act 1985 survived the (ex) tenant's death iii) Such a right to apply is a possession under article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights iv) To hold that the right to apply did not survive death would be in breach of Art 1 Protocol 1 v) the… [read post]
13 Aug 2010, 1:44 pm
Porter Magill v. [read post]
21 May 2020, 1:46 am
Access to legal aid remains limited - https://atjf.org.uk/In the momentous case of Unison v The Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51 (the tribunal fees case) Lord Reed explained why this is so important – “Courts exist in order to ensure that the laws made by Parliament, and the common law created by the courts themselves, are applied and enforced. [read post]
11 Jul 2012, 11:55 am
But from this week in Scottish courts, people helping them with their cases, who are known as McKenzie friends, will be granted the right to speak for them. [read post]
24 Feb 2017, 5:52 am
In McAlpine v Bercow ([2013] EWHC 1342 (QB)) it was held that a tweet sent by Sally Bercow bore the “natural and ordinary” defamatory meaning that Lord McAlpine “was a paedophile who was guilty of sexually abusing boys living in care“ (see our case comment). [read post]
17 Aug 2015, 4:15 am
In a media release, the penal reform charity notes that in its experience of working in prisons, carrying out research and representing young people in custody, “segregating vulnerable and disturbed people tends to make their problems worse”. [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 5:30 pm
Hunt v Times. [read post]
17 Nov 2014, 7:03 am
Lord Wilson gave the leading judgment; Lord Kerr, Lady Hale and Lord Clarke agreed with him. [read post]
23 Jan 2015, 5:13 am
Gyles v. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 4:00 am
The Cases of the Day, NML Capital, Ltd. v. [read post]
15 Apr 2014, 9:52 am
Supreme Court decision The unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered by Lords Neuberger and Toulson. [read post]
3 May 2010, 9:20 pm
Perfectly sane and apparently happy people throw themselves off bridges and in front of trains with no warning at all. [read post]
6 Nov 2014, 7:51 am
People shifting on the leather-upholstered public benches make them creak like a sailing ship. [read post]
27 Jan 2014, 10:08 am
Wait and Zee", this Kat summarised the facts of Zee Entertainment v Zeebox as follows. [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 9:32 am
It applied the principles laid down by the House of Lords in the case of Tomlinson v Congleton DC [2004] AC 46 in interpreting the 1957 Act. [read post]
18 Jul 2018, 6:28 am
So precarious does not mean people with leave. [read post]
29 Jun 2018, 7:57 am
Lord Hodge (on behalf of Lady Hale, Lord Hughes and Lord Lloyd-Jones) delivered the majority view, with only Lord Briggs dissenting. [read post]
27 Oct 2019, 2:18 pm
Outside the context of transitional measures designed to correct historic inequalities, the Court has held that given the need to prevent discrimination against people with disabilities and foster their full participation and integration in society, the margin of appreciation the States enjoy in establishing different legal treatment for people with disabilities is considerably reduced (see Glor v. [read post]
7 Jan 2018, 1:51 pm
Although the passage in the speech of Lord Brown in Smith referred to the parents’ appeal to the House of Lords in D v East Berkshire, there seems to me no doubt that Lord Toulson was addressing the broader proposition. [read post]
