Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 3561 - 3580
of 4,048
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Apr 2010, 7:14 pm
Lord Rodger thought otherwise: ‘Doubtless, some may indeed draw the unjustified inference that M fears. [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 9:34 am
Regular readers will recall that blanket policies are not to be encouraged (those with a need for more citable authority should see something like Lord Browne-Wilkinson in R v SSHD ex p Venables). [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 9:34 am
Regular readers will recall that blanket policies are not to be encouraged (those with a need for more citable authority should see something like Lord Browne-Wilkinson in R v SSHD ex p Venables). [read post]
10 Apr 2010, 8:47 am
Lord Neuberger’s response to the consultation has been posted on the Judiciary website. [read post]
9 Apr 2010, 7:46 pm
This was said to infringe the act of state doctrine, as explained in decisions such as that of the United States Supreme Court in Underhill v Hernandez 168 US 250 (1897) and the House of Lords in Buttes Gas and Oil Co v Hammer [1982] AC 888. [read post]
9 Apr 2010, 7:31 pm
A v B plc (the Flitcroft case) [2003] QB 195 – Lord Woolf CJ gave the judgment of the court in this now notorious and discredited privacy case – Laws and Dyson LJJ were the other members of the Court. [read post]
6 Apr 2010, 2:11 pm
Tang v. [read post]
6 Apr 2010, 5:18 am
Dame Janet Smith, in wording subsequently wholly endorsed by Lord Hutton, stated: “… in my view Article 10(1) does not bear upon the right of access to information that another holds but has not made accessible and does not wish to impart… The first sentence states the principle: ‘Everyone has the right of freedom of expression’. [read post]
6 Apr 2010, 1:29 am
Read more: 28 March 2010 post The ECtHR judgment Our case summary of Carson; Reynolds v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (May 2005 – House of Lords, 2003 – Court of Appeal) Media coverage of the Carson judgment in The Guardian and on the BBC website [read post]
5 Apr 2010, 3:17 am
It is the binding force of the House of Lords’ decisions which produce that result. [read post]
4 Apr 2010, 11:33 am
Lord Mustill in Powell and English stated that where D and P embark on a criminal venture in which P goes further than D wishes, but foreseeably so, D has a measure of culpability for P’s act and V’s resulting death but usually at a lower level than P, D is guilty of murder. [read post]
3 Apr 2010, 11:00 am
WASHINGTON, D.C. v. [read post]
2 Apr 2010, 4:38 am
It cannot be signed by someone under a power of attorney (St Ermins Property Company Ltd v Tingay [2002] EWHC 1673 (Ch); [2002] HLR 11) or any agency agreement (Cascades & Quayside Ltd v Cascades Freehold Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1555; [2008] L&TR 23). [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 7:10 am
Dr Singh appealed to the Court of Appeal, and Lord Judge, Lord Neuberger and Lord Justice Sedley were asked to rule on the preliminary points relating to possible defences. [read post]
31 Mar 2010, 10:39 am
Lord Scarman [in Pao On v. [read post]
31 Mar 2010, 1:15 am
Read more: Case comment on Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) v (1) AF (2) AM (3) AN [2009] UKHL 28 Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights [read post]
29 Mar 2010, 11:37 am
Athough the Strasbourg Courg had established that the concept of civil rights was autonomous, and not solely defined by signatory countries (Konig v Germany (No1) (A/27) (1979-80) 2 EHRR 170 ECHR), nevertheless Article 6 could only apply to civil rights that were arguably recognised under domestic law ( as established by the House of Lords in Matthews v Ministry of Defence (2003) UKHL 4, (2003) 1 AC 1163 applied). [read post]
28 Mar 2010, 2:23 am
Read more: The ECtHR judgment Our case summary of Carson; Reynolds v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (May 2005 – House of Lords, 2003 – Court of Appeal) Media coverage in The Guardian and on the BBC website [read post]
26 Mar 2010, 8:20 am
Interpretation of a jurisdiction clause is a matter of national law (Benincasa, Knorr-Bremse (supra), and in Fiona Trust, Longmore LJ in the Court of Appeal, applauded by Lord Hoffmann in the House of Lords, stated that ‘the words “arising out of” should cover “every dispute except a dispute as to whether there was ever a contract at all”’. [read post]
25 Mar 2010, 6:32 am
The leading judgement was given by Lord Justice LLoyd, Laws and Sullivan assenting. [read post]
