Search for: "Baker v. Lord"
Results 21 - 40
of 129
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Mar 2021, 4:44 am
The Secretary of State maintained that the Supreme Court decisions in R (Unison) v. [read post]
8 Aug 2012, 12:31 am
The majority, in a judgment written by MacMenamin J., found that the trial judge was entitled to reach the conclusions he did on the evidence before him, and that he had correctly applied the proper test, which was essentially the three point test expressed by the House of Lords in Reckitt and Coleman Products Limited v. [read post]
8 Aug 2012, 12:31 am
The majority, in a judgment written by MacMenamin J., found that the trial judge was entitled to reach the conclusions he did on the evidence before him, and that he had correctly applied the proper test, which was essentially the three point test expressed by the House of Lords in Reckitt and Coleman Products Limited v. [read post]
8 Aug 2012, 2:45 am
The majority, in a judgment written by MacMenamin J., found that the trial judge was entitled to reach the conclusions he did on the evidence before him, and that he had correctly applied the proper test, which was essentially the three point test expressed by the House of Lords in Reckitt and Colman Products Limited v. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 3:06 am
Lord Justice Hooper adopted Mr Justice Baker’s reasoning as to why this was a special case. [read post]
11 Nov 2018, 8:02 pm
, Persephone Bridgman Baker, Law Society Gazette, 5 November 2018. [read post]
26 Apr 2015, 4:36 pm
First On 24 April 2015, Jeremy Baker J handed down judgment in Asghar & Mujahid v Ahmad, Ali, Bhutt and Hayat ([2015] EWHC 1118 (QB)). [read post]
13 Mar 2011, 12:42 pm
The Court of Appeal (Sedley, Richards LJJ, Sir Scott Baker) endorsed the Divisional Court’s finding on the first preliminary issue. [read post]
22 Jan 2018, 4:11 pm
In Brightside v RSM UK Audit [2017] 1 WLR 1943, Andrew Baker J held the view that CPR r6.14 fixes the date for all CPR purposes, including the date of service in Scotland. [read post]
2 Oct 2020, 12:17 pm
Baker v. [read post]
27 Sep 2016, 4:20 pm
Notwithstanding the clear terms of section 33(1), after the commencement of the 2009 Act, courts either continued to apply the pre-Act line of authority commencing with the judgment of Lord Coleridge in Bonnard v Perryman [1891] 2 Ch 269, or at least to interpret section 33(1) through the lens of those cases. [read post]
10 Sep 2008, 6:50 pm
Lord Justice Scott Baker at para 36, states In my judgment the law is clear. [read post]
16 Jan 2019, 4:48 pm
Supreme Court There are two media and information case listed before the Supreme Court this term Stocker v Stocker, 24 January 2019, 1 day (Lords Reed and Kerr, Lady Black, Lord Briggs and Lord Kitchin) Cape Intermediate Ltd v Dring, 18 February 2019, 1.5 days (Lady Hall, Lord Kerr, Lord Briggs, Lady Arden and Lord Sales) Court of Justice of European Union The following cases are pending before the CJEU GC and Others v… [read post]
24 Mar 2019, 5:08 pm
Lachaux v Independent Print, heard 13 and 14 November 2018 (UKSC) ZXC v Bloomberg, heard 27-28 and 30 November 2018 (Nicklin J) R (on the application of Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal, heard 3 and 4 December 2018 (UKSC) Ali v Channel 5, heard 4 December 2018 (Irwin, Newey and Baker LJJ). [read post]
5 Mar 2018, 5:50 am
Samuels v. [read post]
10 Mar 2019, 5:08 pm
The House of Lords considered a private members bill, Anonymity (Arrested Persons) Bill proposed by Lord Paddick. [read post]
25 Jun 2018, 2:23 pm
After Baker v. [read post]
29 Oct 2008, 11:49 am
Anyway, leading the decision of the Court (Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Scott Baker and Lord Justice Jacob), Jacob LJ had this to say:"Although Corus pleaded many more points originally, the Judge had to deal with what, by my count, were no less than 10 discrete points or sub-points. [read post]
9 Jun 2016, 6:00 am
“The People v. [read post]
29 Sep 2016, 12:20 am
A cause of action is “a factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person” (Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232, 242-243 (Diplock LJ); Roberts v Gill [2011] 1 AC 240, [2010] UKSC 22 (19 May 2010) [41] (Lord Collins); Murphy v O’Toole [2014] IEHC 486 (17 October 2014) [57]-[58] (Baker J); see also PR v KC [2014] IEHC 126 (11 March 2014) [36] (Baker J),… [read post]
