Search for: "State v. Wales"
Results 361 - 380
of 1,631
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Dec 2017, 12:22 pm
But then there are two previous judgments on this issue, which the Upper Tribunal then turns to: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Nelson and Fife Council (2014) UKUT 525 (AAC) (our report here) and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Glasgow City Council and IB (2017) CSIH 35 (our report here). [read post]
11 Nov 2016, 1:35 am
In a two day hearing at the beginning of October, the Supreme Court heard the case of AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier & Ors focussing on the question of which EU member state has jurisdiction in international tortious claims. [read post]
6 May 2010, 11:07 am
Franklin Mint Company v. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 2:09 am
In Sherdley & Anr v Nordea Life and Pension SA the Court of Appeal was asked to examine whether the English Court had jurisdiction to try a claim brought by British nationals who were not, at the time proceedings were commenced, resident in the UK. [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 4:06 am
In particular the Court (applying Associated Newspapers Ltd v HRH Prince of Wales [2002] Ch.57) impressed the importance of establishing not just that there is a public interest in publication; but also that there is a public interest in breaching the confidence which attaches to the information. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 1:43 am
What caused this distressing state of affairs? [read post]
29 Oct 2012, 9:46 am
In New Cap the issue was whether a default judgment of the New South Wales Supreme Court, Equity Division for unfair preferences was enforceable under the Foreign Judgements (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933. [read post]
8 Jul 2015, 8:09 am
There's definitely something wrong ...The IPKat has reported already twice on the interesting Court of Appeal, England and Wales, decision in Smith & Nephew Plc v ConvaTec Technologies Inc, relating to ConvaTec's patent EP (UK) 1,343,510 relating to silverised wound dressings (see Jeremy here, and this Kat here). [read post]
15 May 2013, 10:47 am
By way of contrast with the treatment of this issue in the United States, Norman takes a look at a very recent decision of the Court of Appeal for England and Wales in HTC Europe Co Ltd v Apple Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 451 (Kitchin, Richards and Lewison LLJ var’g [2012] EWHC 1789 (Pat) Floyd J). [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 2:12 pm
480/99 P Plant and Others v Commission and South Wales Small Mines [2002] ECR I? [read post]
17 Sep 2019, 1:26 am
However in so far as they seek to declare it “null” and of “no effect” he submits that they went too far and where they cannot go. 14:16: Lord Keen QC notes that this principle is consistent with extensive authority and which Sir James Eadie QC will address in due course in further detail. 14:14: Lord Keen QC notes that the Inner House accepted that the principle of non-justiciability exists in public law and that the question of whether something is… [read post]
9 Nov 2016, 9:18 am
In the case of Kranchick v. [read post]
9 Nov 2016, 9:18 am
In the case of Kranchick v. [read post]
22 Jun 2020, 1:42 am
R (on the application of Pathan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 12 December 2019. [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 2:59 am
The Supreme Court of Canada has issued its decision in Google Inc v Equustek (2017 SCC 34). [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 1:18 am
1538: Aidan O’Neill QC submits that the role of this court is to rebalance the constitution. 1530: Aidan O’Neill QC refers to the decision in Padfield v Minister of Agriculture at page 1061 of the decision. [read post]
1 Jun 2015, 5:22 am
The House of Lords considered the effect of s 17(1) in Din (Taj) v Wandsworth LBC [1983] 1 AC 657, HL. [read post]
1 Mar 2018, 1:10 pm
The Oyster Case: Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v. [read post]
11 May 2020, 4:02 pm
He reaffirmed the Court of Appeal’s finding in Campbell v MGN Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1373 that the defendant’s state of mind is irrelevant to the tort of misuse of private information. [read post]
27 Nov 2012, 8:43 am
The Judge referred to the Court of Appeal decision in Adams v Cape Industries [1990] 1 Ch 433, which set out the major factors to be considered, and also pointed out the “principal test” as to whether a company carried on activities in England & Wales was whether that company’s representative located in England & Wales had authority to contract on behalf of the company. [read post]
