Search for: "State v. Hadding" Results 441 - 460 of 124,492
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Jun 2012, 3:00 am by sally
Cathie and another v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2012] EWCA Civ 739; [2012] WLR (D) 168 “In the context of determining whether to disqualify a company director for misconduct in the direction of an insolvent company the use of the expression ‘exceptional circumstances’ was better avoided. [read post]
12 Feb 2009, 1:30 pm
While the Court had given some indication in Carranza v. [read post]
 [12] In that judgment, the ECtHR established that the institution of a domestic criminal investigation concerning deaths which had occurred outside the jurisdiction ratione loci of the Contracting State concerned would create a jurisdictional link between that State and the victim’s relatives who had brought proceedings before the ECtHR. [read post]
17 Nov 2011, 8:05 pm by Staff
The case was set to bench trial, and on the day of trial the State had not subpoenaed their necessary witnesses. [read post]
5 Nov 2015, 9:08 am by Sean O'Beirne, Kingsley Napley LLP
 (R (Lumba) v Secretary of state for the Home Department (JUSTICE intervening) [2011] UKSC 12). [read post]
10 Apr 2014, 1:15 am by Anita Davies
The post Case Preview: R (Whiston) v Secretary of State for the Home Department appeared first on UKSCBlog. [read post]
12 Mar 2008, 2:25 am
Regina (Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council and Another) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Court of Appeal “Proposals to replace two-tier local government in some parts of the country with unitary authorities, made before the necessary statutory powers were in place, were lawful as long as genuine reconsideration had been given to them after the commencement of the relevant Act. [read post]
25 Feb 2008, 1:46 am
R(AM)(Cameroon) v Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (No 2) , Secretary of State for the Home Department as interested party [2008] EWCA Civ 100; [2008] WLR (D) 57 “Where a statutory review of an immigration appeal mistakenly went ahead before a judicial review application establishing a good arguable case had been heard resulting in a final determination, that determination should be set aside and the judicial review proceed. [read post]