Search for: "Bingham v. Bingham"
Results 301 - 320
of 516
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Apr 2014, 11:42 am
In McDonald v Asset Acceptance it was held that a third party debt buyer (Asset Acceptance and Cavalry are very similar in this respect) may not charge interest for the period of time post charge off. [read post]
11 Jun 2008, 10:42 am
” In March, V. [read post]
23 Jul 2009, 5:39 am
By Ashley PaynterIn Tri-Etch, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Jul 2006, 4:51 am
McKerr v United Kingdom, at para. 111). [read post]
20 Feb 2015, 4:57 am
However, distinguishing the present case from the leading case of Osman v UK (1998) 29 EHRR 245, Lord Justice Longmore held that the claim for a breach of the ECHR, art 2 should go to trial. [read post]
3 Sep 2014, 12:11 am
He rejects Denning’s and Bingham’s notions except in the narrowest of circumstances. [read post]
13 May 2008, 1:19 pm
Malcolm in Lewisham v Malcolm). [read post]
15 Dec 2011, 6:41 am
Notably he criticised Lord Bingham (“even Homer nods”, he remarked) for what he said in Ullah v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26, at paragraph 20: a national court subject to a duty such as that imposed by section 2 should not without strong reason dilute or weaken the effect of the Strasbourg case law. [read post]
7 Nov 2008, 4:09 pm
Anyway, on to Ali & Ibrahim v Birmingham City Council [2008] EWCA 1228. [read post]
25 Sep 2010, 9:16 am
Kay v UK: The violation The House of Lords judgment in Kay had already been considered by the ECtHR in McCann and that discussion was referred to by them again in Kay (at [70]); they accepted that Lord Bingham’s approach in his dissenting judgment in Kay as not having serious consequences for the functioning of the system. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 12:53 am
The ECHR in McCann v UK (see our notes here and here) preferred Lord Bingham's approach. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 12:53 am
The ECHR in McCann v UK (see our notes here and here) preferred Lord Bingham's approach. [read post]
18 Oct 2010, 10:15 am
Augusto and Blizzard v. [read post]
9 May 2014, 5:11 pm
The dishonor of reading enumerated rights out of the Privileges or Immunities Clause falls to a later case, United States v. [read post]
27 May 2010, 12:57 am
He approved Lord Bingham’s comments in R v Cambridge Health Authority ex parte B [1995] 1 WLR 898, when he stated: I have no doubt that in a perfect world any treatment which a patient… sought would be provided if doctors were willing to give it, no matter how much it costs… It would however, in my view, be shutting one’s eyes to the real world… It is common knowledge that health authorities of all kinds are constantly pressed to make ends meet. [read post]
8 Nov 2011, 6:37 am
(Gillan and Quinton v United Kingdom (2009) The search powers of security personnel at airports were qualitatively different, said the Court. [read post]
28 Nov 2011, 5:46 am
On April 8, in the case of Bingham v. [read post]
12 Apr 2018, 7:31 am
"Gray v. [read post]
19 Aug 2019, 9:00 am
” Bingham’s Trust v. [read post]
17 Apr 2024, 2:05 am
Linden J also cited with approval Lord Bingham’s statement at [32] in Begum, commenting on the judgment in Şahin v Turkey (2007) 44 EHRR 5, that “The court there recognises the high importance of the rights protected by Article 9; the need in some situations to restrict freedom to manifest religious belief; the value of religious harmony and tolerance between opposing or competing groups and of pluralism and broadmindedness; the need for compromise and… [read post]
