Search for: "State v. Lord" Results 281 - 300 of 4,047
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Oct 2011, 3:42 am by Laura Sandwell
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]
21 Nov 2011, 1:45 am by Matthew Ryder QC, Matrix
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]
18 Nov 2009, 2:19 pm by Rosalind English
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 by Rosalind English
The obvious drawback of this “preposterous” position (Lord Brown [read post]
18 Nov 2015, 2:08 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
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]
23 Nov 2018, 8:09 am by CMS
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]
15 Dec 2016, 1:00 am by Sarah McKeeve, Brodies LLP
Factual background The appellant, Mr Charles McCann has been detained as a patient of the State Hospital, Carstairs since the mid-1990s. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 12:33 pm by Christopher Brown, Matrix.
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]
21 May 2012, 6:42 am by Laura Sandwell, Matrix.
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]
13 Apr 2015, 1:55 am by Darryl Hutcheson, Matrix
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]
3 Jul 2012, 2:11 am by Blog  Editorial
  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]
30 Nov 2018, 7:36 am by ASAD KHAN
The Supreme Court Lords Wilson, Carnwath, Hughes, Lloyd-Jones and Lady Black allowed the appeal. [read post]
7 Feb 2012, 1:43 pm by Kendall Gray
On January 23, 2012 the Supreme Court released its opinion in United States v. [read post]
8 Apr 2016, 9:15 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
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]
14 Nov 2011, 2:14 am by Laura Sandwell
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Payne & Anor, heard 4 November 2011. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 8:39 pm by Simon Gibbs
In AEI Ltd v Phonographic Performance Limited [1999] 1 WLR 1507, Lord Woolf MR stated: “…it is no longer necessary for a party to have acted unreasonably or improperly to be deprived of his costs of a particular issue on which he has failed. [read post]
5 Oct 2011, 5:37 pm by INFORRM
And does it necessarily imply a draconian framework of state interference? [read post]