Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 3301 - 3320
of 4,051
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Nov 2010, 4:53 am
In particular, Lord Mance and Lord Collins examined the issue of when non-signatories may be treated as parties in great detail. [read post]
5 Nov 2010, 4:21 am
The last is the only area substantively addressed in Lord Lester’s Defamation Bill. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 9:54 pm
The second school of thought, and one that has found increasing favour in recent years, is that a party may be deprived of costs in relation to a head of claim on which they have lost and regardless of whether they were “unreasonable” in pursuing that head: • In AEI Ltd v Phonographic Performance Limited [1999] 1 WLR 1507, Lord Woolf MR stated at 1523H: “…it is no longer necessary for a party to have acted unreasonably or improperly to be… [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]
4 Nov 2010, 12:37 am
Discusses whether the super injunction has had its day, following the Queen’s Bench Division rulings in DFT v TFD [2010] EWHC 2335 (QB), AMM v HXW [2010] EWHC 2457 (QB) and Gray v UVW [2010] EWHC 2367 (QB) in which anonymity orders, rather than super injunctions, were made. [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 3:10 am
Unsurprisingly, in my view, in the light of Lord Justice Nichols famous dictum in Lloyds Bank Plc v Rosset [1989] 1 Ch 350 (a case with many similar features): "There was, I repeat, physical presence on the property by the wife and her agent of the nature, and to the extent, that one would expect of an occupier having regard to the then state of the property: namely, the presence involved in actually carrying out the renovation necessary to make the house fit for… [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 3:10 am
Unsurprisingly, in my view, in the light of Lord Justice Nichols famous dictum in Lloyds Bank Plc v Rosset [1989] 1 Ch 350 (a case with many similar features): "There was, I repeat, physical presence on the property by the wife and her agent of the nature, and to the extent, that one would expect of an occupier having regard to the then state of the property: namely, the presence involved in actually carrying out the renovation necessary to make the house fit for… [read post]
2 Nov 2010, 11:47 pm
Bill received its third reading in the House of Lords. [read post]
2 Nov 2010, 11:45 pm
Broom v Secretary of State for Justice [2010] EWHC 2695 (Admin) – Read Judgment When he was transferred from Whitemoor prison to Wakefield Prison in May 2008, Mr. [read post]
1 Nov 2010, 4:43 pm
It has also recently acquired stronger powers to punish disobedient states. [read post]
31 Oct 2010, 5:30 pm
Spiller v Joseph heard 26 and 27 July 2010 (Lords Phillips, Rodger, Walker and Brown and Sir John Dyson). [read post]
31 Oct 2010, 12:10 am
The Supreme Court will hear two appeals this week, starting on Monday 25 October with The Child Poverty Action Group (Respondent) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Appellant). [read post]
29 Oct 2010, 3:57 am
The House of Lords in the British Broadcasting Corporation case [2010] 1 AC 145 appeared to be in no doubt that Article 8 conferred a right to reputation that must be balanced, in an appropriate case, against the rights conferred by Article 10: see Lord Hope at [22] and [28] and Lord Brown at [69]. [read post]
29 Oct 2010, 2:53 am
Lord Justice Neuberger (as he then was) commented that "it is not entirely easy to justify this" (Akici v LR Butlin [2005] EWCA Civ 1296). [read post]
29 Oct 2010, 2:53 am
Lord Justice Neuberger (as he then was) commented that "it is not entirely easy to justify this" (Akici v LR Butlin [2005] EWCA Civ 1296). [read post]
28 Oct 2010, 5:17 am
Robson v Robson [2010] EWCA Civ 1171 may ultimately be best remembered for the language used by Lord Justice Ward in his judgment, rather than for any particular point of law. [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 11:28 pm
And in his detailed consideration of the response of various contracting states to the Salduz decision, Lord Hope notes that a number of states have taken steps to alter their law to bring it into line with the Strasbourg approach. [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 10:30 pm
In this case the applicants had failed before the House of Lords in arguing a violation of their rights for the failure to respond adequately to complaints made to child protection services about the serious neglect and abuse that they was suffering in their home (X and Others v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 3 All ER 353). [read post]
26 Oct 2010, 5:21 pm
But as was stated in Re S, there is no presumptive priority between ECHR rights. [read post]
