Search for: "Word v. Lord"
Results 461 - 480
of 2,056
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jun 2011, 4:10 am
Lord, ? [read post]
17 Feb 2016, 2:18 am
This is because nothing in the wording of the provision necessitates such implication. [read post]
24 Feb 2017, 5:52 am
The words “Fuck Tory Scum” were sprayed on a war memorial in Whitehall. [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 1:34 pm
It is here - the Supreme Court's decision in Eli Lilly v Actavis UK [2017] UKSC 48. [read post]
24 Nov 2017, 7:07 am
One of the points of potential confusion in Actavis is the use of the word “normal” in the first limb of the test, Following Arnold J in Mylan v Yeda (judgment dated 26 October 2017), Henry Carr J held that “normal” in this context means purposive interpretation. [read post]
17 Jul 2015, 7:20 am
The appeal was heard on 16 June 2015 by Lord Neuberger, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hodge and judgment is currently awaited. [read post]
9 Jun 2010, 11:02 pm
Not a red cent has gone to any victim.The surcharge remains what it was; an unfair and arbitrary tax that funnels cash into quangos that have the sense to include the 'V' word in their name.Its day-to-day application produces continuing unfairness and occasionally ludicrous outcomes. [read post]
Case Comment: R (ZH and CN) v London Borough of Newham and London Borough of Lewisham [2014] UKSC 62
14 May 2015, 1:59 am
Lord Neuberger &n [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 9:35 am
Lord Hope based [read post]
7 Jul 2010, 5:30 am
Lord Lester’s Defamation Bill, which is to receive a Second Reading in the House of Lords this Friday, seeks to address these concerns by revising many elements of the law of libel. [read post]
21 Aug 2014, 4:10 am
He went on to determine the meaning of the words complained of. [read post]
11 Sep 2017, 1:30 am
Lord Justice Neuberger saw that, to determine what would amount to an 'immaterial' variation of the invention, it would be helpful to look at the three questions set out in Improver Corpn v Remington Consumer Products Ltd. [read post]
25 Aug 2016, 4:03 am
” Lord Neuberger gave a short concurring judgment, endorsing Lord Sumption’s comments, but reiterating that it had never intended to be an absolute rule. [read post]
20 Nov 2007, 2:09 pm
Words, or at least ones that the Times wouldn’t put asterisks in, fail me. job, law, Legal Aid [read post]
14 Aug 2015, 7:56 am
Background On 17 June the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Limited v Higgins Construction Plc. [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 1:50 pm
The majority held, in the words of Lord Neuberger: that, save perhaps where it is wholly unconnected with the issues between the parties to the proceedings, a statement in without prejudice negotiations should not be admissible in evidence, other than in exceptional circumstances such as those mentioned in Unilever [2000] 1 WLR 2436, 2444D-2445G. [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 1:50 pm
The majority held, in the words of Lord Neuberger: that, save perhaps where it is wholly unconnected with the issues between the parties to the proceedings, a statement in without prejudice negotiations should not be admissible in evidence, other than in exceptional circumstances such as those mentioned in Unilever [2000] 1 WLR 2436, 2444D-2445G. [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 1:50 pm
The majority held, in the words of Lord Neuberger: that, save perhaps where it is wholly unconnected with the issues between the parties to the proceedings, a statement in without prejudice negotiations should not be admissible in evidence, other than in exceptional circumstances such as those mentioned in Unilever [2000] 1 WLR 2436, 2444D-2445G. [read post]
21 Aug 2012, 5:03 pm
re v. [read post]
14 Jan 2016, 8:00 am
Yet, in the words of Auxier J. in Pezzente v. [read post]
