Search for: "Rodgers v. Rodgers"
Results 321 - 340
of 474
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
23 Mar 2011, 3:29 am
By a majority (Lords Phillips, Brown and Rodger dissenting), the court held that the fact that the appellants would have lawfully been detained in any event did not affect the Secretary of State’s liability in false imprisonment. [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 7:39 am
Bruce Saffran in Saffran, M.D., Ph.D., v. [read post]
20 Mar 2011, 5:31 am
On Monday 21 and Tuesday 22 March, Lords Hope, Rodger, Brown, Kerr and Dyson will hear the devoluation appeal of Fraser v Her Majesty’s Advocate. [read post]
13 Mar 2011, 1:41 pm
This week there are three linked appeals to be heard in the Supreme Court from Monday 14 March to Thursday 17 March 2011 by Lords Phillips, Hope and Rodger, Lady Hale and Lords Clarke, Brown and Dyson: R (Cart) v The Upper Tribunal; Eba v Advocate General for Scotland (Scotland); and R (MR (Pakistan)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. [read post]
13 Mar 2011, 12:42 pm
It will be for the seven Justices (Lords Phillips, Hope, Rodger, Lady Hale, Lords Brown and Clarke, and Sir John Dyson SCJ) hearing the appeals in these two parallel cases finally to determine the relationship of the Upper Tribunal to the courts in England and in Scotland respectively and, thus, whether the English and Scottish stories shall share the same ending. [read post]
6 Mar 2011, 12:29 pm
Meanwhile in Courtroom 3, there are three murder cases listed in the Privy Council this week each to be heard by Lords Rodger, Brown, Kerr, Clarke and Dyson. [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 9:06 am
In HM Treasury v Ahmed Lord Rodger had specifically contemplated that if an order had particularly serious consequences it may be acceptable provided “that it had only a limited life-span and was replaced, as soon as practically possible, by equivalent legislation passed by Parliament. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 5:45 pm
In Courtroom 1, Lords Hope, Rodger, Walker, Collins, Kerr, Clarke and Dyson will hear Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v Tower MCashback LLP 1 from Monday 21 to Tuesday 22 February 2011. [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 12:50 pm
Oral Argument in case# 10-3454; Rodger Bassett v. [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 10:19 am
It will be heard on Monday 7 and Tuesday 8 February 2011 by Lords Phillips, Rodger and Walker, Lady Hale and Lords Brown, Mance and Clarke. [read post]
3 Feb 2011, 8:35 pm
In today’s case (Tang v. [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 2:11 pm
This is intended to limit the effect of Thomas v. [read post]
1 Feb 2011, 9:56 am
It is therefore with some interest that this particular Kat read the Court of Appeal’s judgment in JIH v News Group Newspapers [2011] EWCA Civ 42 (the Master of the Rolls providing a judgment with which Lord Justice Maurice Kay and Lady Justice Smith agreed), handed down yesterday. [read post]
31 Jan 2011, 10:00 pm
The Court of Appeal yesterday handed down judgment in the case of JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd ([2011] EWCA Civ 42). [read post]
31 Jan 2011, 3:01 am
The Court of Appeal today handed down judgment in the case of JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd ([2011] EWCA Civ 42). [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 8:53 am
Reasoning Although Baroness Hale made it look relatively easy, this result was rather more difficult to achieve (as is clear from Lords Rodger and Brown’s judgments). [read post]
27 Jan 2011, 4:00 pm
(Eugene Volokh) The case, Yemshaw v. [read post]
26 Jan 2011, 3:24 am
” [28] Lord Rodger could see no reason why Parliament would have intended the position to be any different where someone will be subjected to deliberate conduct, or threats of deliberate conduct, that may cause her psychological, as opposed to physical, harm. [read post]
25 Jan 2011, 4:18 am
On Monday and Tuesday 17 to 18 January 2011 Lord Rodger, Lady Hale, and Lords Mance, Collins and Clarke will hear Duncombe and others v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. [read post]
