Search for: "State v. Moorhouse" Results 21 - 36 of 36
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Feb 2013, 3:57 pm by NL
”And finally, the usual passage from Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond-upon-Thames LBC [2009] UKHL 7 [at 51] is aired:a decision can often survive despite the existence of an error in the reasoning advanced to support it. [read post]
3 Feb 2013, 3:57 pm by NL
”And finally, the usual passage from Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond-upon-Thames LBC [2009] UKHL 7 [at 51] is aired:a decision can often survive despite the existence of an error in the reasoning advanced to support it. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 3:02 pm by chief
Hounslow v Powell; Leeds v Hall; Birmingham v Frisby [2011] UKSC 8 [This is probably a work in progress. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 3:02 pm by chief
Hounslow v Powell; Leeds v Hall; Birmingham v Frisby [2011] UKSC 8 [This is probably a work in progress. [read post]
26 Nov 2013, 3:30 pm by Giles Peaker
”And finally, did:the combined effect of [R (Limbuela) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] 1 AC 396 (HL(E)) ] and Clue establish that there is a free standing duty to accommodate and provide cash to a person like the Claimant who is within the boundaries of a local authority and whose Convention rights are threatened? [read post]
26 Nov 2013, 3:30 pm by Giles Peaker
”And finally, did:the combined effect of [R (Limbuela) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] 1 AC 396 (HL(E)) ] and Clue establish that there is a free standing duty to accommodate and provide cash to a person like the Claimant who is within the boundaries of a local authority and whose Convention rights are threatened? [read post]
3 Apr 2011, 12:02 pm by NL
The respondent's skeleton argument cites in support of that proposition R v Gloucestershire County Council ex p Barry [1997] AC 584, esp at 604E-F and 605 (Lord Nicholls), R v East Sussex County Council ex p Tandy [1997] AC 714, esp at 747B (Lord Browne-Wilkinson), and Ali v Birmingham CC [2010] UKSC 8; [2010] 2 AC 39, at [4] -[6] (Lord Hope). [57] And finally, Bury v Gibbons was a case in which the Authority had simply ignored a request for an oral hearing… [read post]
3 Apr 2011, 12:02 pm by NL
The respondent's skeleton argument cites in support of that proposition R v Gloucestershire County Council ex p Barry [1997] AC 584, esp at 604E-F and 605 (Lord Nicholls), R v East Sussex County Council ex p Tandy [1997] AC 714, esp at 747B (Lord Browne-Wilkinson), and Ali v Birmingham CC [2010] UKSC 8; [2010] 2 AC 39, at [4] -[6] (Lord Hope). [57] And finally, Bury v Gibbons was a case in which the Authority had simply ignored a request for an oral hearing… [read post]
15 Dec 2013, 3:43 pm by Giles Peaker
Birmingham City Council v Balog [2013] EWCA Civ 1582A s.202 review decision on affordability was at the centre of this second appeal, brought by Birmingham after a s.204 appeal decision went against them. [read post]
15 Dec 2013, 3:43 pm by Giles Peaker
Birmingham City Council v Balog [2013] EWCA Civ 1582A s.202 review decision on affordability was at the centre of this second appeal, brought by Birmingham after a s.204 appeal decision went against them. [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]
24 Jan 2017, 2:14 pm by Giles Peaker
The question, in large part, was the significance of Lord Neuberger’s judgment in Hotak v Southwark London Borough Council; Kanu v Southwark London Borough Council [2016] AC 811, at paras 78 and 79 “78. [read post]
1 Sep 2014, 12:49 am by Giles Peaker
See paragraph 13(a) of my decision in RJ v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2012] AACR 28. [read post]
6 Aug 2008, 5:33 pm
Reassuringly it affirms that Creative Commons is not an anti-copyright device but a provider of handy guidance to would-be users, and it doesn't threaten readers with Moorhouse v University of New South Wales, choosing to explain the legal position instead. [read post]
15 May 2012, 2:09 pm by Ariel Katz
The complaint alleged “systematic, widespread, and unauthorized copying and distribution of a vast amount of copyrighted works”, and argued that GSU “has facilitated, enabled, encouraged, and induced Georgia State professors to upload and post to these systems - and Georgia State students simultaneously to download, view, print, copy, and distribute - many, if not all, of the assigned readings for a particular course without limitation. [read post]