Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 281 - 300
of 4,031
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Nov 2011, 1:45 am
In the last two years the Supreme Court has grappled with this conundrum in various ways: in relation to control orders; allegations of terrorist financing (SSHD v AF [2009] UKHL 28); compensation for those who have suffered miscarriage of justice (R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] UKSC 18); and criminal conduct as the subject of disciplinary proceedings (R (G) v The Governors of X School [2011] UKSC 30). [read post]
31 Oct 2011, 3:42 am
On Friday 4 November the matter of Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Payne & Anor will be heard in Courtroom 2 by Lady Hale and Lords Brown, Mance, Kerr and Wilson. [read post]
18 Nov 2009, 2:19 pm
What amounts to “positive action” will no doubt depend upon the circumstances of a particular case and, in some circumstances, the state may be required to take positive steps to prevent ill-treatment at the hands of others (see, e.g., R (Bagdanavicius) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 38 at [24] per Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, E v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2008] UKHL 66 at [44] per… [read post]
16 Jul 2011, 10:00 pm
The obvious drawback of this “preposterous” position (Lord Brown [read post]
18 Nov 2015, 2:08 am
Lord Hodge and Lord Neuberger also gave substantive judgments agreeing that the Rule itself was not disproportionate but that the guidance may result in a significant number of cases in which the article 8 rights of individuals will be breached. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 6:18 am
Judgment Lord Neuberger MR delivered the sole judgment. [read post]
15 Dec 2016, 1:00 am
Factual background The appellant, Mr Charles McCann has been detained as a patient of the State Hospital, Carstairs since the mid-1990s. [read post]
23 Nov 2018, 8:09 am
This week, the UK Supreme Court refused permission to appeal in the matter of Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union v Wightman and others. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 12:33 pm
Lord Walker points out that the 2002 Regulations were clearly aimed at catching foreign nationals seeking to take advantage of the UK benefit system (a point acknowledged by Lord Hope at para 49). [read post]
13 Apr 2015, 1:55 am
The majority contrasted the case at hand with ECHR cases such as Üner v Netherlands and X v Austria where the ECHR had considered the best interests of the child in determining the proportionality of an interference with parents’ rights under article 8 alone and article 8 combined with article 14. [read post]
21 May 2012, 6:42 am
R (HH) v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, R (PH) v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa, BH (AP) and another v The Lord Advocate and another (Scotland), KAS or H (AP) v The Lord Advocate and another (Scotland) and Genoa Filipek-Kwasny v Polish Judicial Authority, heard 5 – 8 March 2012. [read post]
3 Jul 2012, 2:11 am
In relation to control, no material difference as regards the position of the state. 15.07: Thomas de la Mare QC takes the Court through the cases of Barnado and Mallin v Clark. [read post]
7 Dec 2016, 2:11 am
The Lord Advocate replies that this is a fair observation. [read post]
30 Nov 2018, 7:36 am
The Supreme Court Lords Wilson, Carnwath, Hughes, Lloyd-Jones and Lady Black allowed the appeal. [read post]
7 Feb 2012, 1:43 pm
On January 23, 2012 the Supreme Court released its opinion in United States v. [read post]
8 Apr 2016, 9:15 am
On the 9-10 February 2016 the case was heard by a panel of five – Lord Neuberger, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hodge. [read post]
3 Oct 2022, 9:02 am
The stated intention is to hold this vote on 19 October 2023. [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 2:14 am
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Payne & Anor, heard 4 November 2011. [read post]
5 Oct 2011, 5:37 pm
And does it necessarily imply a draconian framework of state interference? [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 1:51 am
The appellants’ first alternative, which involves leaving the law as stated in OBG but without a dealing requirement, would dispense with the control mechanism which the House of Lords considered to be both necessary and desirable. [read post]
