Search for: "Word v. Lord"
Results 261 - 280
of 2,054
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jul 2015, 3:27 am
Later, in Barker v Corus [2006] UKHL 20, the House of Lords decided that each employer was only liable pro rata in respect of the period of time the employee was exposed to asbestos under their employment. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 1:07 am
Lady Hale, Lord Reed and Lord Hughes concurred in both judgments. [read post]
24 Nov 2020, 9:59 am
In other words, the developers should not be rewarded for presenting to the Upper Tribunal a fait accompli. [read post]
28 Aug 2013, 4:33 am
The case was heard on 27 June 2013 by Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Wilson and Lord Carnwath. [read post]
Case preview: Greater Glasgow Health Board (Appellant) v Doogan and another (Respondents) (Scotland)
11 Nov 2014, 7:03 am
The House of Lords decision in R v Salford HA Ex p Janaway Lady Smith found support for her interpretation in the case of R v Salford HA Ex p Janaway [1989] 1 AC 537. [read post]
15 Aug 2014, 6:53 am
Although discussed for for as long as copyright has existed, the modern definition of what a 'work' is came about in the 1960s through the hands of the House of Lords in the United Kingdom.The case in question was Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill, which dealt with two competing companies in the sphere of bookmaking. [read post]
31 Mar 2014, 4:11 am
Lord Mance at [57-100] considered this at some length. [read post]
3 Sep 2011, 2:27 am
SK v WL, despite being decided on the 26th February 2010, has just been reported on Bailii. [read post]
4 Sep 2020, 3:58 am
Twenty years later, in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1, the Court of Appeal purportedly (in the words of the Supreme Court yesterday) followed the Prudential decision, reiterating the Foss v Harbottle rule and holding that a shareholder cannot sue for the recovery of a diminution in the value of his shares or in distributions, where that loss flows from loss suffered by the company and that company has a cause of action to recover… [read post]
18 Jun 2021, 2:58 am
Lord Burrows and Lord Leggatt agree that the appeal should be dismissed but each explain in their own words how they understand SAAMCO and its application to the facts of this case. [read post]
2 Jun 2015, 10:45 am
Indeed, Lord Justice Ackner referred to the case of R v. [read post]
5 Jun 2010, 3:43 pm
The presumption that words could only bear a single meaning was arbitrary and contrary to the trial court's findings.Says the IPKat, this seems entirely fair -- and Lord Justice Jacob thinks so too (or did so when he was a trial judge, at any rate). [read post]
10 Apr 2023, 7:50 am
That word “truly” reminds us that our hope is not an illusion, but the truth! [read post]
31 Jan 2011, 10:00 pm
The Court of Appeal yesterday handed down judgment in the case of JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd ([2011] EWCA Civ 42). [read post]
2 Oct 2014, 5:07 pm
” (Hayes v Willoughby [2013] UKSC 17) – read David Hart’s post on this case for a detailed exposition of Lord Sumption’s analysis of the ingredients of harassment. [read post]
26 Apr 2013, 6:55 am
In other words, the “new” defence is intended to reflect – but not change the common law. [read post]
24 Mar 2014, 2:56 am
In the previous post, we had detailed the facts in the Enercon v. [read post]
30 Oct 2011, 5:04 am
On 19 October 2011, the Supreme Court (Lord Hope, Lord Walker, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke and Lord Wilson) released its decision in the joined cases of R (Davies & Anor) v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs and R (Gaines-Cooper) v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs [2011] UKSC 47. [read post]
30 Oct 2011, 5:04 am
On 19 October 2011, the Supreme Court (Lord Hope, Lord Walker, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke and Lord Wilson) released its decision in the joined cases of R (Davies & Anor) v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs and R (Gaines-Cooper) v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs [2011] UKSC 47. [read post]
28 Oct 2016, 8:20 am
Lords Hope and Rodger wrote the two main judgments in the Supreme Court overruling the unanimous decision of the seven-member Appeal Court in HM Advocate v McLean [2009] HCJAC 97, 2010 SLT 73. [read post]
