Search for: "Word v. Lord"
Results 481 - 500
of 2,056
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Apr 2021, 12:43 am
Whatever the reason, the government has done it and now people are reading the wording of Section 59. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 8:46 pm
Human Genome Sciences v. [read post]
29 Jun 2018, 7:57 am
Lord Hodge (on behalf of Lady Hale, Lord Hughes and Lord Lloyd-Jones) delivered the majority view, with only Lord Briggs dissenting. [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 11:44 pm
Retromark Volume V: the last six months in trade marks1. [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 2:50 am
As we all know, Harlow DC v Hall later meant that on the then wording of Form N28, the tenancy ended on the date of possession in the order regardless of breach of terms. [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 2:50 am
As we all know, Harlow DC v Hall later meant that on the then wording of Form N28, the tenancy ended on the date of possession in the order regardless of breach of terms. [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 2:00 am
That is not a gloss on the statutory wording; it merely gives full weight to the use of the word “would” rather than, for example, “might”. [read post]
1 Jul 2011, 12:01 am
In that case the House of Lords gave the SIAC procedure, in the words of Maurice Kay LJ, a “clear bill of health”. [read post]
17 Jul 2017, 3:39 pm
As noted in the first post, the Supreme Court reformulated the Improver questions, originally posed by Lord Hoffmann when at first instance and subsequently further evaluated by him in the House of Lords in Kirin-Amgen, which thoroughly examined the UK approach to patent claims. [read post]
23 Jan 2015, 5:13 am
Gyles v. [read post]
5 Sep 2012, 2:01 am
In the UK House of Lords decision of Blathwayt v. [read post]
10 May 2016, 7:56 am
We often see contracts containing wording along the lines of: “This Agreement may not be amended, except by the mutual written agreement of the Parties. [read post]
13 Oct 2011, 2:15 am
But in this connection, let us turn to the case of Hirst v United Kingdom No2 (the prisoner voting case). [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 3:02 pm
Hounslow v Powell; Leeds v Hall; Birmingham v Frisby [2011] UKSC 8 [This is probably a work in progress. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 3:02 pm
Hounslow v Powell; Leeds v Hall; Birmingham v Frisby [2011] UKSC 8 [This is probably a work in progress. [read post]
2 Sep 2020, 5:15 am
In layman’s terms, pseudolaw is pure nonsense.AVI v. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 11:30 pm
He expressed caution about using other words to explain the meaning of an ordinary word like “immediate”, but also found some help in Lord Carswell’s view in re Officer L that an immediate risk was one that was “present and continuing” [39-43]. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 10:45 pm
To decline to make a possession order under Article 8 in these circumstances would be, in Lord Bingham’s words in Qazi, ”highly exceptional” . [read post]
4 Jul 2011, 8:53 am
In R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal; R (MR Pakistan) (FC) v The Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber) the Supreme Court determined an important question of principle regarding the nature of the relationship between the Upper Tribunal and the High Court, namely the circumstances in which decisions of the Upper Tribunal are open to challenge in judicial review proceedings. [read post]
20 Oct 2021, 4:41 am
In relation to the tort gateway issue, Lord Lloyd-Jones (with whom Lord Reed, Lord Briggs, and Lord Burrows agree) gave the lead judgment. [read post]
