Search for: "Word v. Lord"
Results 361 - 380
of 2,054
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jul 2012, 6:43 am
The Court of Appeal decision The Court of Appeal reviewed a number of authorities on the meaning of “house”, including Lake v Bennett [1970] 1 Q.B. 663, Tandon v Trustees of Spurgeons Homes [1982] A.C. 755, Boss Holdings Ltd v Grosvenor West End Properties Ltd [2008] 1 W.L.R. 289, (where the House of Lords held that, when deciding whether a building had been designed or adapted for living in, one is largely concerned with the physical state of the… [read post]
6 Aug 2013, 1:45 am
This test was considered in the House of Lords in British Coal Corporation v Smith and others [1996] ICR 515. [read post]
20 Nov 2020, 1:45 am
Lord Reed and Lord Hodge gave the main judgment, with which Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lord Hamblen agreed. [read post]
4 Jul 2017, 4:30 pm
Secondly, the BBC objected to various wordings which they considered to be misrepresentative of their case. [read post]
23 Oct 2008, 2:19 am
Quick exchange of words. [read post]
20 Apr 2018, 1:56 am
In R v May, R v Jennings, R v Green the House of Lords directed courts to consider the three questions which arise in making a confiscation order separately, even if the result was a low order. [read post]
17 Feb 2015, 4:52 pm
It is also worth recalling the words of Lord Atkin in Ley v Hamilton (1935) 153 LT 384 at 386: It is precisely because the real damage cannot be ascertained and established that the damages are at large. [read post]
16 Mar 2015, 10:00 am
If a declaration of incompatibility is made, litigants who have been “victims of those provisions” (in Lord Neuberger’s words) may be able to claim compensation from the Government. [read post]
16 Jul 2011, 10:00 pm
The obvious drawback of this “preposterous” position (Lord Brown [read post]
9 Feb 2014, 12:40 pm
In Daejan v Benson [2013] UKSC 14, Lord Neuberger engaged in some extensive judicial legislating and, in effect, decided that landlords would always get dispensation and that the real issue was what, if any, terms to attach. [read post]
9 Feb 2014, 12:40 pm
In Daejan v Benson [2013] UKSC 14, Lord Neuberger engaged in some extensive judicial legislating and, in effect, decided that landlords would always get dispensation and that the real issue was what, if any, terms to attach. [read post]
7 Dec 2006, 4:09 am
Anderson was expediently and at that time perhaps excusably wrong; and the dissenting speech by Lord Atkin was right" (UKHL ITC v. [read post]
15 Mar 2017, 2:46 am
Analysis On its own this decision once again concludes the arguments about postponement of confiscation proceedings, but it should be read in the light of the decisions in R v Waya [2012] UIKSC 51, R v Ahmad, R v Fields [2014] UKSC 36 and R v Harvey [2015] UKSC 73. [read post]
29 Apr 2021, 4:33 am
Google reviewed the relevant case law on CPR 19.6(1), arguing that the authorities (in particular, Emerald Supplies Ltd v British Airways plc [2011] Ch 345 and Rendlesham Estates plc. v Barr Ltd [2015] 1 WLR 3663) supported its position. [read post]
19 Mar 2008, 3:10 pm
(paras 59-61) Lord Justice Longmore rejects Payne. [read post]
27 Aug 2012, 1:00 am
The first is the helpful summary in Lord Reed’s judgment of the correct approach to interpretation under the HRA. [read post]
22 Dec 2016, 5:17 am
This judgment triggered some further recriminations despite the fact that Lady Hale, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes and Lord Hodge unanimously dismissed Mirza, Iqbal and Ehsan’s appeals. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 3:41 am
Lady Hale, with the concurrence of Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes and Lord Hodge, gave a decision based squarely on the language of the statute, of which the Court adopted a precise and tailored reading. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 3:08 pm
-Gen. v Punch Ltd [2003] 1 AC 1046 at [87]-[88] in the Court of Appeal and at [95] in the House of Lords; and Jockey Club v Buffham [2003] QB 462 (Gray J). [read post]
20 Nov 2012, 10:04 am
In today's ruling the court (Lords Justices Lewison -- who is a former Patents Court judge -- Etherton and Hughes) allowed M&S's appeal. [read post]
