Search for: "Hoffmann v. Hoffmann"
Results 21 - 40
of 463
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Oct 2022, 10:37 pm
On page 3, that one specifically points to the Mannheim Regional Court's Nokia v. [read post]
26 Aug 2022, 10:43 am
If the distinction in cl.4(2) were not drawn in the way that it is, it could in principle entail an enhanced personal right to access information including governmental information (see in this context the discussion in Kennedy v Information Commissioner [2015] AC 455 (SC)). [read post]
23 Jul 2022, 12:45 am
Tomlinson LJ held that, although data protection legislation imposed duties upon controllers, that was insufficient of itself to give rise to a statutory duty for the purposes of the tort of breach of statutory duty: “you cannot derive a common law duty of care directly from a statutory duty” ([73] citing Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank [2007] 181, 200, [2006] UKHL 28 (21 June 2006) [39] (Lord Hoffmann)). [read post]
17 Jun 2022, 2:43 pm
From Hoffmann v. [read post]
21 Apr 2022, 10:47 am
Cain v. [read post]
6 Feb 2022, 4:18 pm
Judgement was handed down in Stadler v Currys Group Ltd [2022] EWHC 160 (QB) on the 1 February 2022. [read post]
12 Jan 2022, 2:09 am
Nevertheless, the observations that the Court concluded in its rationale, which was first observed in the Hoffmann v. [read post]
4 Nov 2021, 5:37 am
To give one example, consider Doe v. [read post]
21 Oct 2021, 7:50 am
Just this week I showed that Germany is the center of gravity of what is presently the biggest 5G patent dispute: Nokia v. [read post]
12 Sep 2021, 3:10 am
On this third point, Mr Justice Birss (as he then was) provided an explanation as to the German injunction gap and the interaction with UK patent proceedings at [14]-[19] of his decision, summarizing previous decisions (HTC v Apple, ZTE, v Ericsson, Garmin v Phillips) where Mr Justice Arnold (as he then was) consistently expressed the view that the presence of a possible German injunction gap "was a factor to take into account". [read post]
23 Jul 2021, 11:20 am
Tex. 2005) (Jack, J.)). [9] Mississippi Valley Silica Co. v. [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 4:27 am
In reviewing Lord Hoffmann's reasons in OBG for imposing the requirement, they listed seven good reasons for it, which should be enough for anyone. [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 4:27 am
In reviewing Lord Hoffmann's reasons in OBG for imposing the requirement, they listed seven good reasons for it, which should be enough for anyone. [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 1:51 am
Thirdly, Lord Hoffmann considered that the best way to keep the tort within reasonable bounds was by giving a narrow meaning to unlawful means. [read post]
16 Jun 2021, 7:47 am
Microsoft v. [read post]
27 May 2021, 1:38 am
Ned chaired the panel for this event, which also featured Lord Hoffmann, Lisa Webb (Senior Lawyer, Which? [read post]
17 May 2021, 11:42 am
A bit more from Hoffman v. [read post]
17 May 2021, 11:41 am
The opinion (in Hoffman v. [read post]
23 Mar 2021, 9:05 pm
Supreme Court decision in McGirt v. [read post]
14 Mar 2021, 9:03 pm
Miller, Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law McGirt v. [read post]
