Search for: "Matter of Adoption of LC"
Results 21 - 40
of 49
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Jun 2015, 9:50 am
The lawbook referred to above is a set of laws adopted in Iceland under Norwegian rule in 1281, known as the Jónsbók. [read post]
27 Apr 2015, 3:25 pm
Clark v Manchester City Council [2015] UKUT 129 (LC) Mr Clark had a licence for an HMO for not more than 5 occupants. [read post]
16 Jul 2014, 9:30 pm
Excellent analysis of the subject matter of Court opinions.... [read post]
30 Dec 2013, 2:39 pm
Simon v Denbighshire CC [2010] UKUT 488 (LC) Denbighshire had decided that a category 1 hazard existed in an HMO owned by Mr Simon, of excess cold. [read post]
30 Dec 2013, 2:39 pm
Simon v Denbighshire CC [2010] UKUT 488 (LC) Denbighshire had decided that a category 1 hazard existed in an HMO owned by Mr Simon, of excess cold. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 9:38 am
Fairhold Mercury Ltd v HQ (Block 1) Action Management Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 487 (LC)Fairhold (Yorkshire) Ltd v Trinity Wharf (SE16) RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 502 (LC)Assethold Ltd v 7 Sunny Gardens RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 509 (LC)No.1 Deansgate (Residential) Ltd v No.1 Deansgate RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 580 (LC)Pineview Ltd v 83 Crampton Street RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 598 (LC)Assethold Ltd v 13-24 Romside Place RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 603 (LC)Ninety… [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 9:38 am
Fairhold Mercury Ltd v HQ (Block 1) Action Management Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 487 (LC)Fairhold (Yorkshire) Ltd v Trinity Wharf (SE16) RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 502 (LC)Assethold Ltd v 7 Sunny Gardens RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 509 (LC)No.1 Deansgate (Residential) Ltd v No.1 Deansgate RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 580 (LC)Pineview Ltd v 83 Crampton Street RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 598 (LC)Assethold Ltd v 13-24 Romside Place RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 603 (LC)Ninety… [read post]
12 Dec 2013, 4:42 am
The rules would say the director can vacate an IMR determination at any point unless an appeal has been filed with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board or the time to file an appeal has expired.IMR was statutorily authorized by Labor Code section 4610.5, added via SB 863.LC 4610.5 provides a list of the documents that are mandatory for an IMR to occur:...... [read post]
2 Dec 2013, 1:14 am
In the matter of LC (Children) (Nos. 1 and 2), heard 11 November 2013. [read post]
2 Dec 2013, 1:14 am
In the matter of LC (Children) (Nos. 1 and 2), heard 11 November 2013. [read post]
18 Nov 2013, 2:26 am
In the matter of LC (Children) (Nos. 1 and 2), heard 11 November 2013. [read post]
23 Oct 2013, 11:48 am
He noted that the Fourth Amendment requires, but the OFCCP has not adopted, the Fourth Amendment procedural protections of: subpoenas for contractor objections to off-site investigations, as required by the High Court’s 1946 decision in Oklahoma Press Pub Co v Walling (10 LC ¶51,222), and warrants for contractor objections to on-site investigations, as required by Supreme Court’s 1978 ruling in Marshall v Barlow’s Inc (436 U.S. 307). [read post]
27 Dec 2012, 1:54 pm
The fact that the tenant had a defence didn’t matter. [read post]
27 Dec 2012, 1:54 pm
The fact that the tenant had a defence didn’t matter. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 12:14 am
Liverpool City Council v Kassim [2011] UKUT 169 (LC)A thank you to the EHP who brought our attention to this case. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 12:14 am
Liverpool City Council v Kassim [2011] UKUT 169 (LC)A thank you to the EHP who brought our attention to this case. [read post]
31 Dec 2011, 3:24 am
The Upper Tribunal therefore heard the matter by way of a re-hearing and considered whether dispensation should be granted retrospectively. [read post]
31 Dec 2011, 3:24 am
The Upper Tribunal therefore heard the matter by way of a re-hearing and considered whether dispensation should be granted retrospectively. [read post]
18 Nov 2011, 10:21 am
We believe strongly that whatever mechanism is adopted should be included the final EGU MACT rule. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:53 pm
Furthermore, the Article illustrates how the proposed introduction of a separate conflict of laws rule on the law of agency in the Draft Rome I-Regulation impinges on this question, even though this rule was eventually not adopted. [read post]
