Search for: "State v. Lord"
Results 421 - 440
of 3,605
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Feb 2018, 3:12 am
The inviolability of documents which are part of a mission archive under arts 24 and 27(2) of the VCDR makes it impermissible to use such documents (or copies) in a domestic court of the host country, absent extraordinary circumstances such as state security, or express waiver from the mission state. [read post]
15 Sep 2009, 8:31 am
Just who they are varies from state to state, but they've included doctors who can't get hospital privileges anywhere, felons doing time for drug offenses, former EMTs, and . . . . [read post]
29 Nov 2022, 12:15 am
In Trajkovski Invest AB v. [read post]
29 Dec 2017, 7:59 am
Lords Clarke, Wilson and Sumption agreed with Lord Carnwath’s lead judgment and Lady Hale delivered a concurring judgment. [read post]
19 Mar 2014, 1:42 am
In addressing the very nature of human rights law, Lord Reed called with approval upon the words of Lord Cooke in R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 2 AC 532: “The truth is, I think, that some rights are inherent and fundamental to democratic civilised society. [read post]
25 Mar 2014, 1:46 pm
In giving the lead judgement in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Moore-Bick, quoted extensively from the judgment of Lord Justice Diplock in Tappenden v Artus (Tappenden v Artus [1964] 2 Q.B. 185). [read post]
8 Feb 2012, 2:27 am
He stated that the judgments in Johnson and Eastwood v Magnox Electric plc; Cornwall County Court v McCabe [2004] UKHL 35 both recognised that provisions in the ERA did not supersede an employee’s common law and contractual rights and he allowed the appeal. [read post]
21 Dec 2017, 1:00 am
The case was heard by Lady Hale, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lady Black. [read post]
18 Jan 2011, 7:29 am
In its original application to Strasbourg MGN contested the decision of the House of Lords in Campbell v MGN ([2004] 2 AC 457) that it breached Ms Campbell’s privacy by the publication of an articles in February 2001 in which it divulged details about her drug addiction therapy. [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 2:42 am
The Supreme Court stated in dismissing the claim that s 94(5) of the Act reads as referring to countries where its citizens are free from any serious risk of systematic persecution either by the state or by non-state agents. [read post]
15 Mar 2012, 7:23 am
On 7 March 2012, the Supreme Court gave judgment in seven linked cases, now known as W (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 8. [read post]
16 Jun 2010, 4:11 am
By way of introduction, Lord Brown noted that the majority in the House of Lords in Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ [2008] 1 AC 385 held that deprivation of liberty might take a variety of forms other than classic detention in prison or strict arrest. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 6:32 am
The father appealed against that decision.Held: Giving the leading judgment, Lord Justice Pill said (at paragraph 7) that the primary issue was the meaning and effect of paragraph 16(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Child Support Act 1991, which states that a maintenance assessment will cease to have effect "on there no longer being any qualifying child with respect to whom it would have effect". [read post]
22 Feb 2024, 8:08 am
Justice Munby, in agreement with Lord Justice Thorpe’s comments, stated that the rule has a “baleful effect” and that “something should be done to amend rule 3.17 with a view to implementing Lord Justice Thorpe’s wise proposals”. [read post]
2 Feb 2022, 3:22 am
Applying those principles, Lord Hodge concluded that, in the 2014 Act, Parliament authorised the subordinate legislation by which the Secretary of State has fixed the relevant application fee. [read post]
10 Mar 2023, 3:26 am
Lord Hamblen (with whom Lord Hodge, Lord Kitchin and Lord Sales agreed) gave the majority opinion of the court, with Lord Briggs dissenting. [read post]
24 Aug 2015, 1:30 am
It relied on the judgment of Lord Bingham in Attorney General’s Reference (No 2 of 2001) [2003] UKHL 68, which had stated that time generally runs from the point at which a person is charged or summoned. [read post]
30 Jan 2014, 9:53 am
In Blaustein v. [read post]
15 Sep 2015, 1:00 am
Lord Reed cites a nice example, Schmidberger Internationale v Austria (Case C-112/00) [2003] ECR I-5659. [read post]
12 Oct 2009, 8:24 am
The People's Republic of Bangladesh v. [read post]
