Search for: "Lady v State"
Results 461 - 480
of 1,759
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jan 2019, 2:48 am
Lady Hale gave a concurring judgment in which she agreed with Lord Sumption that, given the need for a practicable and proportionate scheme, bright-line rules are necessary, and that the categories used are proportionate, save as to the two exceptions Lord Sumption identified. [read post]
28 Jan 2019, 1:00 am
R (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice; R (Nealon) v Secretary of State for Justice, heard 8-9 May 2018. [read post]
27 Jan 2019, 4:19 pm
On 24 January 2019 the UK Supreme Court (Lords Reed and Kerr, Lady Black, Lord Briggs and Lord Kitchin) will hear the appeal in the case of Stocker v Stocker. [read post]
27 Jan 2019, 9:46 am
State v. [read post]
24 Jan 2019, 1:31 am
Today, 24 January 2019, five Supreme Court judges (Lord Reed, Lord Kerr, Lady Black, Lord Briggs and Lord Kitchin) will hear Stocker v Stocker UKSC 2018/0045, an appeal against the 12 February 2018 Court of Appeal decision of Lady Justice Sharp, with whom Lord Justice McFarlane and Sir John Laws concurred ([2018] EWCA Civ 170). [read post]
24 Jan 2019, 12:08 am
Today, 24 January 2019, five Supreme Court judges (Lord Reed, Lord Kerr, Lady Black, Lord Briggs and Lord Kitchin) will hear Stocker v Stocker UKSC 2018/0045, an appeal against the 12 February 2018 Court of Appeal decision of Lady Justice Sharp, with whom Lord Justice McFarlane and Sir John Laws concurred ([2018] EWCA Civ 170). [read post]
22 Jan 2019, 9:22 am
Williams v The London Borough of Hackney [2018] UKSC 37 was about the opposite scenario; where a local authority wanted to accommodate but the parents wanted the children back. [read post]
22 Jan 2019, 8:44 am
Up until this case, that position had support in domestic law (see AL (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 42, [2008] 4 All ER 1127; R (Hooper) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 29, [2006] 1 All ER 487; and R (S) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [2004] UKHL 39, [2004] 4 All ER 193). [read post]
20 Jan 2019, 4:05 pm
Butt v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 17 October 2018 (Underhill V-P, Sharp LJ and Sir Rupert Jackson). [read post]
17 Jan 2019, 11:09 pm
This was a reference in particular to the infamous front page of the Daily Mail which identified the three judges who decided that the government could not trigger Article 50 (and start the Brexit clock) without the consent of Parliament (R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5 AKA Miller)Hale noted that Miller is not judge made law by any stretch of imagination. [read post]
16 Jan 2019, 4:48 pm
Butt v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 17 October 2018 (Underhill V-P, Sharp LJ and Sir Rupert Jackson). [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 2:48 pm
Fund v. [read post]
14 Jan 2019, 2:50 pm
” Ramirez v. [read post]
14 Jan 2019, 1:00 am
R (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice; R (Nealon) v Secretary of State for Justice, heard 8-9 May 2018. [read post]
7 Jan 2019, 7:15 am
Sales LJ was unconvinced that the criteria set out in Ladd v Marshall [1954] EWCA Civ 1 – intended to reflect the balance of justice in relation to applications to admit fresh evidence – had not been satisfied and KV was unable to demonstrate that evidence such as Dr Cohen’s report could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use earlier. [read post]
30 Dec 2018, 3:03 am
Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit in Folkens v Wyland. [read post]
17 Dec 2018, 1:00 am
R (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice; R (Nealon) v Secretary of State for Justice, heard 8-9 May 2018. [read post]
10 Dec 2018, 1:00 am
R (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice; R (Nealon) v Secretary of State for Justice, heard 8-9 May 2018. [read post]
3 Dec 2018, 10:30 am
The other is that the second case for argument today is Lorenzo v. [read post]
30 Nov 2018, 7:36 am
The Supreme Court Lords Wilson, Carnwath, Hughes, Lloyd-Jones and Lady Black allowed the appeal. [read post]
