Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 3401 - 3420
of 4,051
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jul 2010, 3:33 pm
[para 12] On the context of s.89, the doctrine of survivorship was consistent with the way Part IV of the Housing Act 1985 worked, as described by Lord Hoffman in Birmingham City Council v Walker [2007] UKHL 22. [read post]
27 Jul 2010, 3:33 pm
[para 12] On the context of s.89, the doctrine of survivorship was consistent with the way Part IV of the Housing Act 1985 worked, as described by Lord Hoffman in Birmingham City Council v Walker [2007] UKHL 22. [read post]
25 Jul 2010, 11:00 pm
KS v R [2010] EWCA Crim 1756 (23 July 2010) – Read judgment J, S, M v R [2010] EWCA Crim 1755 – Read judgment The Lord Chief Justice has emphasised in two Court of Appeal judgments that the jury-less trials must be a last resort and take place only in truly extreme cases. [read post]
25 Jul 2010, 12:10 pm
This was well-summarised by the Court in the following terms: (i) a claim for possession of land is the modern equivalent of a claim for ejectment (see the discussion in Secretary of State for the Environment v Meier [2009] UKSC 11; [2009] 1 WLR 2780, paragraphs 6-7, 26-33, and 59-61); (ii) a claim for ejectment (as opposed to a claim for an injunction in trespass) could only be maintained by someone who could establish a legal estate in the land (see e.g. per Lord… [read post]
25 Jul 2010, 12:10 pm
This was well-summarised by the Court in the following terms: (i) a claim for possession of land is the modern equivalent of a claim for ejectment (see the discussion in Secretary of State for the Environment v Meier [2009] UKSC 11; [2009] 1 WLR 2780, paragraphs 6-7, 26-33, and 59-61); (ii) a claim for ejectment (as opposed to a claim for an injunction in trespass) could only be maintained by someone who could establish a legal estate in the land (see e.g. per Lord… [read post]
24 Jul 2010, 10:04 am
The defence of fair comment was last considered by the House of Lords in Telnikoff v Matusevitch ([1992] 2 AC 343). [read post]
23 Jul 2010, 1:30 am
Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. [read post]
23 Jul 2010, 1:09 am
Applying the House of Lords decision in Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Impregilo SpA [2005] UKHL 43, Tomlinson J held that an error of law does not involve an excess of power under section 68(2)(b) of the Act. [read post]
22 Jul 2010, 5:00 am
The judge stated clearly that the Al Rawi principles applied in the current case. [read post]
22 Jul 2010, 3:24 am
’ This interpretation was in turn rejected by the European Court of Human Rights in Gillan and Quinton v. [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 10:45 pm
It is unlikely, however, that judges can be relied upon to step up on this issue in light of the recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Schalk and Kopf v. [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 3:16 pm
The House of Lords decision in Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v. [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 3:16 pm
The House of Lords decision in Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v. [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 12:18 am
The Princess Caroline case in 2004 – Von Hannover v Germany – appeared to give celebrities and others the right to claim that they should be protected from being photographed in public places when they were on private business. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 1:05 am
In Berkoff v. [read post]
18 Jul 2010, 4:35 am
In Dillon v Cush; Dillon v Boland ([2010] NSWCA 165) the New South Wales Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the defendant on the basis that the judge’s analysis of qualified privilege and malice was flawed. [read post]
17 Jul 2010, 2:11 am
Reynolds and Jameel – the existing law Before examining the proposals in Lord Lester’s Defamation Bill it is perhaps worth summarising shortly the existing state of the Reynolds common law defence. [read post]
17 Jul 2010, 2:00 am
The judgment in this still has not been released. 14 July | Law Review: Lord Judge LCJ on the State of The Nation – an important speech: Charon QC summarises Lord Judge’s speech. [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 7:37 am
A (Appellant) v Essex County Council & National Autistic Society (Intervener) [2010] UKSC 33 Supreme Court (Lord Phillips, Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke) July 14 2010 The right to education under Article 2 Protocol 1 of the Convention was not breached by the delay in catering for the special educational needs of a child. [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 3:52 am
’ ([2001] 1 AC 127, 201 per Lord Nicholls.) [read post]
