Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 361 - 380
of 4,033
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
18 Jul 2018, 6:28 am
However, Rhuppiah’s counsel declined Lord Carnwath’s offer to consider reading awareness into statute. [read post]
25 Jun 2021, 3:48 am
The minority (Lord Stephens and Lord Briggs) would have dismissed Libya’s appeal on the first issue. [read post]
9 Nov 2016, 1:47 am
Permission to appeal has been granted by a panel of three Justices (Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance and Lord Kerr) and the case can now proceed to a full hearing. [read post]
19 Aug 2017, 4:25 pm
Justice Judson writing for the Court stated at 753:The principle to be applied is that stated in Lord v. [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]
19 Feb 2014, 4:05 pm
In the case of David Miranda v Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and three interveners ([2014] EWHC 255 (Admin)) the High Court rejected all the arguments supporting David Miranda’s application for judicial review of his detention at Heathrow Airport in August last year. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 2:53 pm
The problem here was the high threshold of evidence set out in R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor [2014] EWHC 218 (Admin), reported at [2014] ICR 498, R (Tabbakh) v Staffordshire and West Midlands Probation Trust [2014] EWCA Civ 827, and the second Unison case, R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor (No. 2) [2014] EWHC 4198 (Admin). [read post]
26 Nov 2018, 1:48 am
The dust has started to settle following the Supreme Court decision in Warner-Lambert v Actavis [2018] UKSC 56 handed down recently (IPKat post here). [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 11:28 am
Lord Carlile and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department – read judgment The High Court has upheld an order by the Home Secretary preventing Maryam Rajavi, a prominent Iranian dissident, from speaking in Parliament. [read post]
23 Oct 2020, 1:45 am
Lord Wilson agrees with Lady Arden. [read post]
5 Mar 2021, 1:02 pm
‘The defendant’s submission on this point does not seem to me to belong to the real world of this litigation,’ it states. [read post]
2 Apr 2015, 8:27 am
They cite Lord Nicholls in Douglas v Hello 3 (OBG v Allan) as clearly stating that the concept of breach of confidence and misuse of private information “now covers two distinct causes of action”. [read post]
2 Jul 2019, 9:28 am
Lord Carnwath agreed [110]. [read post]
6 Aug 2017, 4:42 pm
In the context of these applications, the fact of and reasons for his arrest were stated in open court. [read post]
7 Mar 2014, 1:34 am
Lord Toulson then turned to a second line of argument, first developed by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in King v American Airlines. [read post]
12 Aug 2011, 8:58 am
The contract expressly stated that the relationship between the parties was that of client and independent contractor. [read post]
8 Jul 2015, 2:28 am
Lord Carnwath stated that until he turned eighteen, for fiscal and administrative purposes, his ordinary residence continued to be in Wiltshire, regardless of where they determined that he should live, including placing him in foster care in South Gloucestershire. [read post]
1 Dec 2014, 5:00 am
Firstly, the authorities are unclear on what percentage of the population has to be at risk before a country is removed from the white list (in R (Husan) v SSHD [2005] EWHC 189 Admin 1% of the population was considered ‘significant’, yet in Singh v SSHD & Anor [2001] EWHC 925 (Admin), 0.76% of the population was not). [read post]
