Search for: "Hoffmann v. Hoffmann"
Results 421 - 440
of 463
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Apr 2010, 12:49 am
In this feature we revisit some older posts which may still be of current interest. [read post]
1 May 2011, 12:00 am
The Prime Minister said last week that he was “uneasy” about the development of a privacy law by judges based on the European Convention when this should be a matter for parliament. [read post]
11 Feb 2009, 5:34 am
As the Court recognised in its decision in Hoffmann v Krieg, a decision may relate partly to matters within scope and partly to matters outside - the fact that the former may be said to constitute the principal subject matter of proceedings does not (or at least has never before been understood by the author to) require a decision, often a separate decision, on the latter in the same case to be recognised under the Regulation. [read post]
12 Sep 2012, 4:38 pm
HHJ Birss QC took the opportunity of the question session to explain that in certain cases, where the parties agree, he may be prepared to give preliminary views on the case during a Case Management Conference and/or deal with cases on paper (as was done in Hoffmann v DARE). [read post]
13 Sep 2012, 12:54 am
Judge Birss took the opportunity of the question session to explain that in certain cases, where the parties agree, he may be prepared to give preliminary views on the case during a Case Management Conference and/or deal with cases on paper (as was done in Hoffmann v DARE). [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 7:14 pm
The Court adopted the description of the Article 8 / 10 balancing exercise given by Lord Hoffmann in Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457, at [55] and [56] (a case brought by Naomi Campbell against a newspaper which had published photographs of her leaving a drug treatment session): ‘when press freedom comes into conflict with another interest protected by the law, the question is whether there is a sufficient public interest in that particular publication to… [read post]
25 May 2015, 4:06 pm
For example, it did not assist the claimant in YXB v TNO [2015] EWHC 826 (QB), who has now been named by newspapers, or prevent the judge from informing us that YXB had sent the defendant images of his erect penis and of himself masturbating. [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 4:20 am
The CAFC, in Zoltek Corp. v. [read post]
4 Nov 2021, 5:37 am
To give one example, consider Doe v. [read post]
25 May 2011, 11:46 pm
Therasense v. [read post]
17 Mar 2011, 11:55 am
Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 541 F.3d 1115, 1122 (Fed. [read post]
26 Mar 2013, 5:06 pm
Exemplary damages for libel were upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Hill v Church of Scientology ([1995] 2 SCR 1130). [read post]
26 Aug 2022, 10:43 am
If the distinction in cl.4(2) were not drawn in the way that it is, it could in principle entail an enhanced personal right to access information including governmental information (see in this context the discussion in Kennedy v Information Commissioner [2015] AC 455 (SC)). [read post]
10 Nov 2010, 4:30 pm
The three most recent full trials are Hughes v Risbridger (2010 EWHC 491 (QB)) Berezovsky v Russian Television (10 March 2010 EWHC 476 (QB)) and Gary Flood v Times Newspapers (16 October 2009 EWHC 2375 (QB)). [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 1:37 pm
Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 892 A.2d 694, 705 (N.J. [read post]
21 Apr 2022, 10:47 am
Cain v. [read post]
5 Oct 2015, 1:00 am
Most recently of all, in Nicklinson (Nicklinson and Lamb v the United Kingdom), the ECtH [read post]
21 Sep 2020, 6:43 am
Recent cases citing these rights together include Watson v Campos [2016] IEHC 18 (14 January 2016) [28] (Barrett J); Rooney v Shell E&P Ireland [2017] IEHC 63 (20 January 2017) [31]-[32] (Ní Raifeartaigh J); Ryanair v Channel 4 Television [2017] IEHC 651 (05 October 2017) [49]-[52] (Meenan J). [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 3:18 pm
Brown v. [read post]
4 Apr 2011, 5:34 pm
This reflects the current law as stated in Chase v News Group Newspapers ([2002] EWCA Civ 1772). [read post]
