Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 3081 - 3100
of 4,051
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Apr 2011, 4:59 am
This question was addressed in Revill v Newberry [1996] QB 567. [read post]
3 Apr 2011, 11:31 pm
First, on Monday 4 and Tuesday 5 April 2011, Lord Rodger, Lady Hale, Lords Brown, Kerr and Dyson will hear R (McDonald) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. [read post]
3 Apr 2011, 12:02 pm
The respondent's skeleton argument cites in support of that proposition R v Gloucestershire County Council ex p Barry [1997] AC 584, esp at 604E-F and 605 (Lord Nicholls), R v East Sussex County Council ex p Tandy [1997] AC 714, esp at 747B (Lord Browne-Wilkinson), and Ali v Birmingham CC [2010] UKSC 8; [2010] 2 AC 39, at [4] -[6] (Lord Hope). [57] And finally, Bury v Gibbons was a case in which the Authority had simply ignored a… [read post]
3 Apr 2011, 12:02 pm
The respondent's skeleton argument cites in support of that proposition R v Gloucestershire County Council ex p Barry [1997] AC 584, esp at 604E-F and 605 (Lord Nicholls), R v East Sussex County Council ex p Tandy [1997] AC 714, esp at 747B (Lord Browne-Wilkinson), and Ali v Birmingham CC [2010] UKSC 8; [2010] 2 AC 39, at [4] -[6] (Lord Hope). [57] And finally, Bury v Gibbons was a case in which the Authority had simply ignored a… [read post]
2 Apr 2011, 5:47 pm
In Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2010] EWHC 1414 (QB) Tugendhat J referred to the judgment of the House of Lords in Sim v Stretch ([1936] 2 All ER 1237) and to the judgment of Sharp J in Ecclestone v Telegraph Media Group Ltd ([2009] EWHC 2779 (QB)) and held that, “whatever definition of ‘defamatory’ is adopted, it must include a qualification or threshold of seriousness, so as to exclude trivial claims” [89]. [read post]
2 Apr 2011, 5:11 am
In T M Noten BV v. [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 5:13 am
(The claimant had relied on the requirements in Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 2 AC 167 at [19]). [read post]
31 Mar 2011, 1:00 pm
DONE at the city of Washington this seventeenth day of November in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred seventy-six and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred first. [read post]
31 Mar 2011, 9:50 am
The Supreme Court, however, felt constricted by the operation of law: Lord Clarke stated that whilst he could see the merits of introducing a public interest exception, “whether and in what circumstances to permit such as exception seems to me to be essentially a matter for Parliament and not for the courts” (see paragraph 49). [read post]
31 Mar 2011, 5:04 am
The UK Secretary of State for Justice, Kenneth Clarke recently released his government’s Draft Defamation Bill. [read post]
31 Mar 2011, 4:46 am
Lord Justice Lloyd and Lord Justice Elias both gave concurring judgments. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 10:00 pm
Lumba v Secretary of State for the Home Deparment – a case of driving government policy further underground? [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 3:24 am
It is true that the placing of data on a server in one state can make the data available to the public of another state but that does not mean that the party who has made the data available has committed the act of making available by transmission in the State of reception. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 1:51 am
In the courts: Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 12 (23 March 2011): Secret foreign nationals detention policy which contradicted published policy was “serious abuse of power”. [read post]
27 Mar 2011, 12:44 pm
In Sienkiewicz v. [read post]
27 Mar 2011, 3:29 am
On Monday 28 March, Peter Stewart v The Queen will be heard by Lord Rodger, Lady Hale, Lords Brown, Kerr and Dyson. [read post]
24 Mar 2011, 11:21 pm
The case of Patmainiece v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was reported in an earlier post. [read post]
24 Mar 2011, 2:15 am
As the law seems to stand at the moment, per the case of Tiensia v. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 6:26 am
While the statements in question may have been made in the United States, they were republished in Ontario and were alleged to have caused injury to Lord Black’s reputation in Ontario. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 3:43 am
Lords Phillips and Brown (with whom Lord Rodger agrees) dissent and hold that because the appellants would have been lawfully detained the Secretary of State is not liable to them in false imprisonment: [319]-[334], [343]-[360]. [read post]
