Search for: "Word v. Lord"
Results 241 - 260
of 2,054
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Mar 2021, 4:48 pm
The wording sought is modest by comparison, and factual in nature. [read post]
12 Mar 2021, 9:57 am
In the Supreme Court's recent standing decision, Uzuegbunam v. [read post]
10 Mar 2021, 3:26 am
”[5] Comments There are five comments that could be made about the Court of Appeal’s decision (Hussaini JCA) in A.B.U. v VTLS.[6] First, the Court of Appeal (Hussaini JCA) in A.B.U. v VTLS[7] followed Oputa JSC’s obiter dictum in Sonnar (Nig) Ltd v Partenreedri MS Norwind.[8] It should be stressed that Oputa JSC’s obiter dictum is not binding on lower courts according to the Nigerian common law doctrine of stare decisis. [read post]
5 Mar 2021, 1:02 pm
’ And the words on page three will be: ‘The Duchess of Sussex ‘Following a hearing on 10-20 January 2021, the Court has given judgment for The Duchess of Sussex on her claim for copyright infringement. [read post]
4 Mar 2021, 11:14 am
In HKSAR v. [read post]
2 Mar 2021, 12:47 pm
Having read a lengthy submission from Associated Newspapers and heard arguments from counsel, Lord Justice Warby dismissed the case in a few words, saying he ‘saw no prospect’ of any other court coming to a different conclusion. [read post]
21 Feb 2021, 4:07 pm
On 18 February 2021 Saini J heard the trial of preliminary issues on meaning, fact or opinion and whether the words are defamatory in the case of Ware v French. [read post]
15 Feb 2021, 10:19 am
Moore-Bick LJ has also mentioned it with apparent approval in Transocean Drilling UK Ltd v Providence Resources Plc [2016] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 51, [Para 33]; a case concerning a mutual knock-for-knock regime. [read post]
14 Feb 2021, 4:45 pm
On 11 February Lord Justice Warby handed down judgment on the summary judgment application in the case of HRH Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] EWHC 273 (Ch). [read post]
11 Feb 2021, 2:35 pm
Instead, the Managers, and the press, only needed to quote the word "frivolous. [read post]
10 Feb 2021, 4:47 pm
Lord Wilson dissented on both points. [read post]
8 Feb 2021, 11:05 am
I ultimately did not answer this question, but said the question was open under Walter Nixon v. [read post]
8 Feb 2021, 7:10 am
In other words a patent cannot usually be found obvious over the amalgamation of two pieces of prior art. [read post]
7 Feb 2021, 1:01 pm
Our position in regard to the scope of disqualification allows the voters, not Congress, to have the last word. [read post]
6 Feb 2021, 2:26 pm
And the closing words of Article V read that “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. [read post]
5 Feb 2021, 1:45 am
Lord Lloyd-Jones gave the judgment, with which all members of the Court agreed. [read post]
17 Jan 2021, 11:45 am
All of the elements of the claim that could be discerned from Mr M’s narrative Particulars either amounted to “full frontal attacks on the findings of the Judge’, and were thus an abuse of process, or the sort of decision that that a court can and should determine summarily as amounting to no more than an error of judgment rather than negligence, to use the words of Lord Steyn in Arthur JS Hall v Simons. [read post]
15 Jan 2021, 1:45 am
Lord Hamblen and Lord Leggatt gave the main judgment with which Lord Reed agreed. [read post]
12 Jan 2021, 6:03 am
During the hearing, Lord Sales found some difficulty with this position as it is possible to assess delay earlier on in the contract, it is not necessary to wait until completion. [read post]
20 Dec 2020, 9:56 am
The idea that one purveyor of a free photo printing app could stop another free photo printing app from using the words FREE PRINTS seemed ludicrous to me then (and this decision does not grant the Claimant such a monopoly). [read post]
