Search for: "Word v. Lord"
Results 421 - 440
of 2,056
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jan 2019, 6:21 am
Corcoran on the merits, or whether – using the EBA’s words – “unsubstantiated or groundless, made-up allegations were used as a pretext for getting rid of an irksome judge”. [read post]
5 Jan 2019, 3:06 pm
Rule 27.9 requires a recording to be made of a hearing in open court of proceedings pending in the High Court, and in other proceedings at the Lord Chancellor’s direction. [read post]
4 Jan 2019, 3:33 am
Neither sense of the word seems particularly apt when applied to a summary of a hedging policy. [read post]
30 Dec 2018, 4:13 am
See PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd. [read post]
27 Dec 2018, 4:28 pm
The House of Lords found that such practices did interfere with individuals’ right to a private life under Article 8(1) [read post]
19 Dec 2018, 9:49 am
PatentsKat Neil reflects on the lexical transformation of the “troll” from stock character in Scandinavian mythology (and plastic dolls with bright colored up-combed hair...) into a staple of contemporary IP discourse, not once but twice: The IP term (thus far) of the millennium: the curious story of the adoption of "patent troll" and "internet trolling"Kat Troll DollIPKat provided further depth commentary on Warner-Lambert v Actavis, delving into the… [read post]
13 Dec 2018, 8:51 am
House of Lords Bribery Act 2010 Committee As part of the scrutiny drive, the House of Lords has established a Bribery Act 2010 Committee. [read post]
12 Dec 2018, 11:42 am
Times Democrat Publishing Co. v. v. [read post]
5 Dec 2018, 1:12 am
There is also a very old case from 1954, called Warren v. [read post]
2 Dec 2018, 4:28 pm
On 29 November 2018 the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, David Gauke, issued a statement, “Controlling the costs of defamation cases”. [read post]
30 Nov 2018, 7:36 am
But in the subsection it has applied the word to circumstances different from those to which the ECtHR has applied it. [read post]
30 Nov 2018, 7:36 am
(i) Meaning of Precarious In the context of art 8 and removal, Lord Wilson traced the first use of the word “precarious” to Mitchell v UK [1998] ECHR 120 where the ECtHR said that precariousness was an “important” but “not decisive” consideration and where family life had been developed with clear knowledge of one spouse’s precarious immigration status then only in the “most exceptional circumstances”… [read post]
29 Nov 2018, 9:05 am
Comment This appeal is of general public and constitutional importance because the Supreme Court will have an opportunity to review the seminal judgment in Anisminic and offer guidance on the form of words parliament may use to oust the jurisdiction of the courts. [read post]
19 Nov 2018, 4:14 pm
In Barrett v. [read post]
14 Nov 2018, 3:25 am
In other words, a patent may be found invalid on the grounds that the invention is insufficiently disclosed. [read post]
11 Nov 2018, 8:02 pm
On 13 and 14 November 2019 the Supreme Court (Lords Kerr, Wilson, Sumption, Hodge and Briggs) will hear the appeal in the most important defamation case if the year – Lachaux v Independent Print. [read post]
9 Nov 2018, 7:35 am
Further the word “unduly” implies an element of comparison. [read post]
9 Nov 2018, 7:34 am
” In other words, the assessment of reasonableness is a function of whether one parent has a right to remain, but the other parent does not or whether neither parent has the right to remain. [read post]
6 Nov 2018, 8:41 am
Lachaux v Independent Print, Supreme Court to hear “serious harm” appeal On Tuesday and Wednesday 13 and 14 November 2018, the Supreme Court (Lords Kerr, Wilson, Sumption, Hodge and Briggs) will hear the appeal in Lachaux v Independent Print Limited & Anor UKSC 2017/0175, against the Court of Appeal decision of Davis LJ, with whom MacFarlane and Sharp LJJ concurred ([2017] EWCA Civ 1334). [read post]
5 Nov 2018, 4:05 pm
On Tuesday and Wednesday 13 and 14 November 2018, the Supreme Court (Lords Kerr, Wilson, Sumption, Hodge and Briggs) will hear the appeal in Lachaux (Respondent) v Independent Print Limited and another (Appellants) UKSC 2017/0175, against the Court of Appeal decision of Davis LJ, with whom MacFarlane and Sharp LJJ concurred ([2017] EWCA Civ 1334). [read post]
