Search for: "Thames v. State"
Results 21 - 40
of 120
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Dec 2019, 8:09 am
”) Smith v. [read post]
1 Dec 2019, 1:25 pm
Royal Borough of Kingston-Upon-Thames v Moss (2019) EWHC 3261 (Ch) Ever since Jones v London Borough of Southwark (2016) EWHC 457 (Ch) (our report), the position on water rates taken as rent by a number of London Councils and Housing Associations under agreements with Thames Water has been conflicted. [read post]
5 Nov 2019, 8:57 am
This decision concerns an estate, known as Virginia Quay Estate, constructed by Barrett Homes at the turn of the century/millenium, across the Thames from what was then the Millennium Dome. [read post]
2 Sep 2019, 5:52 am
The appellants had relied upon the view of May J in Summers v London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames [2018] EWHC 782 (Admin), [2018] 1 WLR 4729, at [24], that the expression “those in the locality” in section 59 of the 2014 Act “must be read to include those who regularly visit or work in the locality, in addition to residents”. [read post]
14 Jun 2019, 4:34 pm
Otherwise stated, whether the article means that – as stated in the headline – the claimant was one of two found “guilty of killing a woman while racing their cars”. [read post]
5 Feb 2019, 2:37 pm
Thames’s sole contention on ... [read post]
11 Nov 2018, 10:30 am
USA: Skidmore v. [read post]
31 Aug 2018, 5:13 am
Drinks on the Gowling WLG balcony overlooking the Thames will take place at 5.45pm. [read post]
19 Aug 2018, 11:43 pm
R (Gaskin) v LB Richmond Upon Thames (2018) EWHC 1996 (Admin) In this case the High Court overturned a prosecution against Mr Gaskin and gave substantial guidance on fees and other points associated with HMO licensing, and by implication selective licensing, schemes under the Housing Act 2004. [read post]
15 Jul 2018, 11:38 am
Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond-upon-Thames London Borough Council (2009) UKHL 7. [read post]
25 May 2018, 12:15 pm
Jeff Benedict is a prominent reporter and author of Little Pink House, an excellent journalistic account of the events leading up to Kelo v. [read post]
15 Mar 2018, 4:27 am
In other words, the question was whether the judgment of Gage LJ in Tetteh v Kingston Upon Thames Royal London Borough Council [2004] EWCA Civ 1775 survived Hotak; ie that it remained correct in asserting that a review decision had to be read as a whole and that there was no reason for the reviewer to go further than stating the test and the overall finding. [read post]
7 Jan 2018, 1:51 pm
In my view, he is correct that there is insufficient here arguably to amount to an assumption of care so as to satisfy the approach in X v Hounslow or Darby v Richmond-upon-Thames. [read post]
13 Nov 2017, 7:30 am
Furthermore, the High Court has recognised that new-style misconduct hearing panels have a legal identity separate to the chief constable of the force in respect of whose officer the panel sits: see Chief Constable of Thames Valley v Police Misconduct Panel [2017] EWHC 923 (Admin) (McGowan J) and the blog post here. [read post]
22 Oct 2017, 4:18 pm
Panayiotou v Waltham Forest and Smith v Haringey. [read post]
30 Jul 2017, 7:34 pm
As the Court stated in R. v. [read post]
30 Jun 2017, 11:52 am
Arguably, the effect on claimants of the band of reasonable responses test has been ameliorated by decisions such as Newbound v Thames Water Utilities Ltd relying on s 98(4)(b) to emphasis the test’s practical limits: The “band of reasonable responses” has been a stock phrase in employment law for over thirty years, but the band is not infinitely wide. [read post]
21 May 2017, 2:42 pm
There was, inevitably, reliance on Lord Neuberger’s ‘warning in Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond upon Thames London Borough Council [2009] UKHL 7; [2009] 1 WLR 413, paras 46 & 50 that: “47. [read post]
11 Apr 2017, 2:15 pm
And then there was Darby (administratrix of the estate of Lee Rabbetts deceased) v Richmond Upon Thames LBC. [read post]
22 Feb 2017, 12:55 pm
To understand these three inter-related appeals, Cassidy v Cassidy and Hansen, No. 328004, No. 328024 and Cassidy v Cassidy, No. 333319, we first must state the facts of this not-so-simple divorce matter. [read post]
