Search for: "BINGHAM v. BINGHAM"
Results 341 - 360
of 516
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Oct 2011, 8:47 am
It would seem “quite wrong” for this court to interpret Article 6 of the Convention as laying down an absolute exclusionary rule of evidence that goes any wider than Strasbourg has already clearly decided to be the case: this was the application of the “Ullah principle” - Lord Bingham’s well known aphorism in (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] 2 AC 323 at para 20. [read post]
23 Jun 2007, 9:44 am
Gore Wood [2002] 2 AC 1, 31 [HL, per Lord Bingham of Cornhill]; Barrow, supra, ibid.; Manson, supra, ibid.; Bradford and Bingley Building Society v. [read post]
31 May 2009, 10:24 am
And deciding Art 6 compliance requires a view to the composite decision-making process, including but not limited to the judicial review process (R (Alconbury Developments Limited) v SS for the Environment, Transport and Regions [2003] 2 AC 295, Runa Begum [2003] 2 AC 430 and Adan v Newham LBC [2002] 1 WLR 2120. [read post]
11 Mar 2010, 4:10 pm
After reviewing the precedent cases (Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (a firm) [2002] 2 AC 1, Stuart v Goldberg Linde (a firm) [2008] 1 WLR 823 ) and noting that it would be "wrong to hold that because a matter could have been raised in earlier proceedings it should have been, so as to render the raising of it in later proceedings necessarily abusive" (Lord Bingham in Johnson), and the Art 6 entitlement to access to justice for an arguable case, the Court of Appeal… [read post]
5 Sep 2009, 8:00 am
Weil V. [read post]
11 Mar 2010, 4:10 pm
After reviewing the precedent cases (Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (a firm) [2002] 2 AC 1, Stuart v Goldberg Linde (a firm) [2008] 1 WLR 823 ) and noting that it would be "wrong to hold that because a matter could have been raised in earlier proceedings it should have been, so as to render the raising of it in later proceedings necessarily abusive" (Lord Bingham in Johnson), and the Art 6 entitlement to access to justice for an arguable case, the Court of Appeal… [read post]
1 May 2012, 12:41 pm
R (Medihani) v. [read post]
13 May 2010, 3:26 am
To quote Lord Bingham in Spath: The 1988 Act [Housing Act 1988] had its desired effect of tempting private landlords back into the market. [read post]
13 May 2010, 3:26 am
To quote Lord Bingham in Spath: The 1988 Act [Housing Act 1988] had its desired effect of tempting private landlords back into the market. [read post]
10 Jul 2008, 1:55 pm
Bingham (R-Ohio) and Sen. [read post]
Northern Ireland District Judge acquits Pastor of “gross offence” against Muslims – Rosalind English
17 Feb 2016, 4:40 pm
His passion and enthusiasm for his subject caused him to, so to speak, “lose the run of himself” [20] The Handyside freedom of expression test, as applied by Lord Bingham in Director of Public Prosecution v Collins [2006], was whether the defendant, in exercising his right to say things or express opinions which offended, shocked or disturbed one or more sectors of the population, use language which was “BEYOND THE PALE” of what was intolerable in… [read post]
13 May 2010, 6:15 am
Armendariz. v. [read post]
8 Oct 2013, 3:01 pm
Indeed, it bases its decision to reject Defence arguments on the ECtHR, the Al Khawaja and Tahery v. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 10:32 am
Notably, Bingham offered this amendment by itself, not as part of a larger prov [read post]
9 Oct 2016, 4:21 pm
Or Sir Thomas Bingham’s “acid test”: is there a reasonable explanation for the conduct complained of? [read post]
14 Jul 2009, 12:26 pm
A decision of the Court of Appeal that was not cited in Westminster was Wood v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [2003] EWHC 2971 (QB). [read post]
11 Mar 2016, 7:42 am
"Simmons v. [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 1:43 am
As Lord Bingham said in R v Cambridge Health Authority ex parte B, I have no doubt that in a perfect world any treatment which a patient, or a patient’s family, sought would be provided if doctors were willing to give it, no matter how much it costs, particularly when a life was potentially at stake. [read post]
2 Jul 2010, 5:00 pm
Smith v. [read post]
10 Dec 2010, 3:35 am
Seal v United Kingdom (Application no. 50330/07) – Read judgment The European Court of Human Rights has rejected the claim of a man detained by the police for 9 days under mental health law. [read post]
