Search for: "People v. Camden" Results 21 - 40 of 117
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Aug 2017, 11:43 pm by Ben Reeve-Lewis
What made me smile this week I’ve joined the Man v. [read post]
11 Apr 2017, 2:15 pm by Giles Peaker
The House of Lords in O’Rourke v Camden LBC (1998) AC 188,  and the court of appeal in X v Hounslow found no duty of care in Part VII and Part VI Housing Act 1996 obligations, or their previous equivalents. [read post]
7 Nov 2016, 3:32 pm by Giles Peaker
Camden were not impressed. [read post]
3 Aug 2016, 8:05 am by S
The result – which was positive for GS – is potentially of considerable assistance for similar people. [read post]
2 May 2016, 5:30 pm by Kevin LaCroix
This protects against the possibility that coverage might be precluded due to late notice simply because awareness of the claim had not made its way to the right people within the company. [read post]
14 Jan 2016, 11:12 am by Kenneth Vercammen Esq. Edison
” 11We believe the civil union law created a burdensome and flawedstatutory scheme that fails to afford same-sex couples the samerights and remedies provided to heterosexual married couples asrequired … by the New Jersey Supreme Court and its landmarkLewis v. [read post]
19 Dec 2015, 9:57 am by Giles Peaker
” There was apparently no consideration of the Mohammed principles (R (Mohammed) v Camden LBC [1997] 30 HLR 315 – (a) the merits of the substantive case, (b) whether there was new material on review that could effect the decision, (c) the personal circumstances of the applicant.). [read post]
21 May 2015, 4:43 am by Dave
All of this tended to justify the subsequent authorities – R v Basingstoke and Deane BC ex p Bassett (1983) 10 HLR 125; R v Brent LBC ex p Awua; R v Harrow LBC ex p Fahia; R v Camden LBC ex p Aranda (1997) 30 HLR 76; R v Hackney LBC ex p Ajayi (1997) 30 HLR 473 – in which different acts were said to have broken (or had the potential to break) the chain of causation from the earlier… [read post]
13 May 2015, 2:09 am by Giles Peaker
This was a point of appeal from Kanu v Southwark (our report). [read post]