Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 321 - 340
of 3,588
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jul 2016, 2:13 am
Lord Kerr gave the only judgment. [read post]
11 Dec 2014, 8:06 am
Lord Tyre stated that this was an act of “reckless folly” which was not excused by Ms Jackson’s age (Ehrari v Curry [2007] EWCA Civ 120 distinguished). [read post]
18 Nov 2013, 2:47 am
Wider Implications The proceedings in Hook v British Airways and Stott v Thomas Cook have already attracted significant attention from the Equality and Human Rights Commission; with the Secretary of State acting as a further intervener. [read post]
8 Aug 2016, 6:00 am
(per Lord Clarke). [read post]
22 Sep 2014, 9:00 am
Lord Bannatyne stated that it was not his task “to prefer one body of evidence to another rather it was for the pursuer to demonstrate that the views of the defenders’ experts were illogical or irrational. [read post]
26 Feb 2020, 2:30 am
Following a stay and the decision in EN (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 630, which determined that the 2004 Order was unlawful, DN amended his judicial review proceedings to concentrate on the lawfulness of the detention. [read post]
16 Mar 2009, 2:20 am
The right to be compensated was removed by the decision of the House of Lords in 2007, Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Company.The Association of British Insurers has criticised the Bill stating that it is "fundamentally flawed. [read post]
17 Sep 2019, 1:26 am
Lord Keen QC noted it could. [read post]
16 Oct 2011, 5:26 am
This is only the second time that the highest court has considered the application of the “responsible publication in the public interest”, first established by the House of Lords in Reynolds v Times Newspapers ([2001] 2 AC 127) nearly 12 years ago. [read post]
25 Jan 2008, 12:52 pm
Lord Justice Lawrence Collins concurred, but Lord Justice Wall dissented: "In my judgment," he stated, "...it seems to me clear that the fundamental assumption behind the agreement, and critical to the making of the order, was the assumption that Mrs. [read post]
29 Jul 2015, 3:00 am
Giving the lead judgment Lord Reed stated that the decisions taken to authorise the segregation under the Prison Rules 1999, rule 45(2), was not taken by the Secretary of State but instead by a senior prison officer. [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 2:00 am
Finally, the charging of higher fees for certain types of claim more likely to be brought by women was indirectly discriminatory, with the measures not justified as a proportionate means of achieving the stated aims of the fees regime. [read post]
21 May 2019, 5:23 am
Hence Irwin LJ found that the “underlying principle in Zambrano is undisturbed by Chavez-Vilchez” and in the latter case the referring court was looking for guidance in circumstances where a child was dependent on one non-EU parent with no right of residence; circumstances in which the state must ensure a careful process of enquiry. [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 4:27 pm
The Grand Chamber stated in Cumpana v Romania on 17 December 2004 at paragraph 91, in the context of a publication covered by Article 10, that Article 8 “may require the adoption of positive measures designed to secure effective respect for private life even in the sp [read post]
30 Apr 2021, 7:52 am
Ltd v Knight Steamship Co. [read post]
17 Aug 2015, 4:15 am
In relation to the first issue, Lord Reed in his judgment (with which Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Sumption and Lord Hodge agreed) noted that the decisions taken under rule 45(2) in these two cases were not taken by the Secretary of State, but instead by a senior prison officer or “operational manager”. [read post]
28 May 2015, 8:36 am
In a judgment handed down today Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Ptc EHF & Others [2015] EWCA Civ 556 the Court of Appeal (led by Lord Justice Floyd) has put forward a wider test for the infringement of second medical use patents. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 9:46 am
It is however an established principle of Strasbourg jurisprudence that such a right does not extend so far as to impose a positive obligation on public authorities to disclose or distribute information (see Leander v Sweden (1987) 9 EHRR 433 or Roche v United Kingdom (2005) 42 EHRR 599). [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 1:26 am
There is some authority on this point from the United States. [read post]
15 Jan 2016, 10:27 am
Quoting Benedetti v Sawiris [2013] UKSC 50, Lord Clarke held that the court must ask itself four questions when faced with a claim for unjust enrichment: “(1) Has the defendant been enriched? [read post]
