Search for: "State v. Lord"
Results 361 - 380
of 3,605
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
19 Sep 2019, 1:25 am
Lord Hodge asks Lord Keen QC how Parliament is to respond if it is not there. [read post]
4 Feb 2015, 2:07 am
The case was heard by Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed and Lord Hughes. [read post]
27 Feb 2012, 4:15 am
Lord Phillips stated that when considering whether or not such material fell within the scope of the Act he agreed with Lord Neuberger that one should consider the “directness of the purpose of holding the information and the BBC’s journalistic activities”. [read post]
15 Dec 2016, 6:06 am
The majority, in a judgment given by Lord Toulson (Lords Neuberger, Mance, Sumption and Hughes agreeing), upheld the claimant’s appeal in Carmichael and dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal in Rutherford – both relating to disabled claimants with a medical need for an additional bedroom. [read post]
19 Mar 2018, 6:46 am
Lord Lloyd-Jones opined that the principle of legality was in play. [read post]
27 Jan 2016, 3:09 am
In delivering the lead judgment Lord Carnwath provisionally stated that the decision in 2005 was the exercise of prerogative powers for the conduct of foreign relations. [read post]
10 Apr 2011, 4:36 pm
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, heard 14 – 17 March 2011. [read post]
2 Jul 2019, 9:27 am
The lead judgment was given by Lord Wilson, with whom Lord Hodge and Lord Carnwath agreed; a concurring judgment was given by Lord Carnwath with whom Lord Reed and Lord Hughes agreed; a concurring judgment was also given by Lord Hodge with whom Lord Hughes agreed. [read post]
5 May 2016, 6:57 am
And, even though the FTC does not have the authority to impose civil money penalties for these types of violations of the FTC Act, state Attorneys General appear to be getting in on the act. [read post]
1 Aug 2017, 1:05 am
Lord Hughes states that the acid test should be whether the application is in substance (impermissibly) to vary or alter the final order or whether it is (permissibly) to support it by working out how it should be carried into effect [54]. [read post]
19 Mar 2019, 3:16 am
Lord Wilson noted that there is evidence of extensive torture by state forces in Sri Lanka at the relevant time. [read post]
30 Jan 2016, 4:32 am
That was the difficult question the Supreme Court had to grapple with in the case of R(C) v. [read post]
4 Nov 2018, 6:10 pm
On 29 October 2018 Lord Speaker Lord Fowler issued a statement on parliamentary privilege. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 2:55 am
A. v Secretary of State for the Home Department. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 2:55 am
A. v Secretary of State for the Home Department. [read post]
28 Aug 2015, 7:30 am
He applied his Guidance on the Identification of the Ordinary Residence of People in Need of Community Care Services, England, which purported to apply the House of Lords judgment in R v Barnet LBC, ex parte Shah [1983] 2 AC 309 and Turner J’s judgment in R v Waltham Forest, ex parte Vale The Times, 25 February 1985. [read post]
5 Dec 2014, 9:06 am
” USC notes that one of the earliest recorded white collar crimes concerned an importer who, after taking out a loan to acquire goods for sale, planned to fake a shipwreck and make off with the goods and money.Another such scheme was the genesis of the ruling of the Lord Chief Justice, the 1st Earl of Mansfield [William Murray], in the Zone case [Gregson v Gilbert (1783) 3 Doug. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 7:57 am
As the Court of Appeal judgement delivered by Lord Justice Floyd (Lord Justice Elias and Lord Justice Kitchin concurring) memorably observed:Genentech now recognises, however, that there is no realistic prospect of this court re-visiting the judge's conclusion that a dosing regimen of 8 + 7.14 q3w was obvious. [read post]
28 Jun 2014, 3:23 pm
X v UK is inconsistent with other more persuasive authorities like Airey v Ireland, Steel & Morris v UK (2005) 41 EHRR 22, and W v UK (1988) 10 EHRR 29 which, significantly, is a family law authority. [read post]
