Search for: "Word v. Lord"
Results 401 - 420
of 2,054
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Dec 2016, 2:30 am
He referenced the case of R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Rees-Mogg discussed earlier today to support his submission on behalf of the government that when Parliament wants to exercise control over the prerogative power then it has done so expressly. 16.21: In response to a query from Lord Mance about the relevance of the legislation after the ECA 1972, James Eadie QC submits that as Article 50 was not in existence until 2008, the… [read post]
4 Apr 2016, 4:00 am
Supreme Court decision Lord Hodge, with whom Lord Neuberger, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hughes agreed, gave the judgment of the court. [read post]
28 Nov 2011, 12:32 pm
Lord, if you are willing, please make that continue to be the case during the upcoming year as well. [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 2:43 am
The dissent is notable, if only for the fact the President of the court, Lord Neuberger, and Lord Sumption are the two dissenters. [read post]
30 Dec 2013, 6:46 am
More precisely, Folkman argued that`[t]he only difference between the facts in Lord and the instant case is that the officer physically stopped Lord's car to check his vehicle registration because Lord was displaying temporary plates that could not be checked through the eTime system. [read post]
25 Dec 2014, 2:12 am
On the invalidity issue, SEB said that Arnold J was wrong to conclude that SEB's patent was not obvious over the prior art in a German patent (Vogt), dating back to 1971.Said the Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Vos, giving judgment for himself, Lord Justice Burnett and Sir Timothy Lloyd), the appeal should be allowed:* Arnold J should not have held that the lid of SEB's appliance was to be regarded as a part of the main body, his mistake being to rely on reference numerals… [read post]
28 Jan 2013, 4:11 pm
In other words, did the privilege attach because of the nature of the communication, rather than the status of the person communicating. [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 7:59 am
Eli Lilly v Actavis UK [2017] UKSC 48This is an important case about whether drugs manufactured by Actavis infringe a European patent of Lilly. [read post]
24 Jun 2019, 11:07 am
” FCC v. [read post]
6 Jan 2015, 10:44 am
The Appellants assert that the House of Lords decision in Stone and Rolls Ltd v Moore Stephens [1] (in which the liquidators of Stone and Rolls were unable to pursue a claim against the company’s auditors for failure to detect a fraud perpetrated by Stone and Rolls’ sole director and shareholder) applies to the facts in this case thereby preventing Bilta (itself now in liquidation) from making any claim. [read post]
20 May 2015, 4:09 am
This requires words or conduct to be directed towards the claimant for which there is no justification. [read post]
31 Mar 2011, 9:50 am
And thus Mr Coke-Wallis can continue to be a member of the Institute (“unfortunate” and “absurd” though this might be, in Lord Collins’ words): readers may feel that he is a lucky man. [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 7:10 am
Dr Singh appealed to the Court of Appeal, and Lord Judge, Lord Neuberger and Lord Justice Sedley were asked to rule on the preliminary points relating to possible defences. [read post]
20 Jul 2022, 4:37 am
Lord Burrows sets out the correct modern approach to statutory interpretation, which is that the court is concerned to identify the meaning of the words used by Parliament, and in so doing, the context and purpose of the provision or provisions are important. [read post]
27 Mar 2019, 10:22 am
In other words, it would not have been obvious to a skilled person to initially try a dose as low as 5 mg in a hypothetical Phase IIb clinical trial. [read post]
10 Nov 2021, 3:29 am
This argument was founded on the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the case of Gulati v MGN, which concerned systematic phone hacking by journalists from the Mirror Group. [read post]
8 Feb 2012, 12:00 am
The only available guidance derives from DPP v Collins ([2006] UKHL 40), an appeal from the Divisional Court. [read post]
7 May 2015, 1:02 pm
Mayo v. [read post]
27 May 2019, 4:35 pm
The first strand Mr Sterling emphasised the importance of the headline, in particular Lord Nicholls’ observation that “Those who print defamatory headlines are playing with fire” (Charleston v News Group Newspapers Limited [1995] 2 AC 65, 74). [read post]
27 Jan 2016, 2:29 am
In giving the leading judgment Lord Neuberger first addressed the appellant’s claim that the refusal to allow them to claim benefits infringed their rights under the TFEU. [read post]
