Search for: "M/V Lord"
Results 521 - 540
of 915
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Apr 2013, 4:00 am
This is, of course, why Lord Denning has proven to be so enduring and popular. [read post]
30 Jan 2011, 9:11 am
[t]heir Lord is the government, not God. [read post]
2 Feb 2020, 4:41 pm
Last Week in the Courts On 28 to 30 January 2020 there will be a CMC in the phone hacking case of Various Claimants v MGN. [read post]
2 Oct 2015, 7:31 am
Focus here on clusters of issues: Formalism v. realism. [read post]
23 Feb 2014, 4:14 pm
I’m only asking (which is better? [read post]
25 May 2012, 12:36 pm
Gebbie, BM3 Donald M. [read post]
29 May 2010, 6:33 am
Gebbie BM3 Donald M. [read post]
25 May 2012, 12:36 pm
Gebbie, BM3 Donald M. [read post]
29 May 2011, 5:52 am
Gebbie, BM3 Donald M. [read post]
16 Feb 2020, 4:52 pm
heard 4 and 5 February 2020 (Etherton MR, David Richards and Coulson LJJ) Various Claimants v MGN, heard, 28 to 31 January 2020 (Mann J) Dawson-Damer & Ors v Taylor Wessing LLP & Ors, heard 29 and 30 January 2020 (Floyd, Newey and Arnold LJJ) W M Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants, heard 6 and 7 Nov [read post]
29 Sep 2021, 12:18 pm
Lord & Taylor, LLC v. [read post]
14 Mar 2011, 4:30 am
Waller v. [read post]
8 Mar 2020, 5:10 pm
Judgments The following reserved judgments after public hearings in media law cases are outstanding: ZXC v Bloomberg, heard 3 and 4 March 2020 (Underhill, Bean and Simon LJJ) Hayden v Associated Newspapers, heard 3 March 2020 (Julian Knowles J) Sube v News Group Newspapers, heard 4 to 7 February 2020 (Warby J) Various Claimants v MGN, heard, 28 to 31 January 2020 (Mann J) W M Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various… [read post]
12 May 2012, 5:15 am
The principles in R (M) v Slough Borough Council [2008] UKHL 52 should be applied, both as to the threshold for s.21(1)(a), met "as soon as a person can be said to be in need of some care and attention, even to a relatively small degree" [Lord Neuberger in M] and considering current and prospective need: Having regard to the principles set out in M in relation to current and prospective need (at [35], [55]), it will be a question of fact in each… [read post]
12 May 2012, 5:15 am
The principles in R (M) v Slough Borough Council [2008] UKHL 52 should be applied, both as to the threshold for s.21(1)(a), met "as soon as a person can be said to be in need of some care and attention, even to a relatively small degree" [Lord Neuberger in M] and considering current and prospective need: Having regard to the principles set out in M in relation to current and prospective need (at [35], [55]), it will be a question of fact in each… [read post]
15 May 2012, 2:02 pm
The principles in R (M) v Slough Borough Council [2008] UKHL 52 should be applied, both as to the threshold for s.21(1)(a), met “as soon as a person can be said to be in need of some care and attention, even to a relatively small degree” [Lord Neuberger in M] and considering current and prospective need: Having regard to the principles set out in M in relation to current and prospective need (at [35], [55]), it will be a question of… [read post]
15 Mar 2010, 12:09 pm
Eric M. [read post]
12 Jul 2010, 1:25 pm
I’m hoping to get some input from readers as I look to finish up an amicus brief for the forthcoming Schwarzenegger v. [read post]
17 Jan 2012, 7:10 am
It is true, as Lord Phillips observed in the House of Lords’ judgment in the present case, that one of the reasons for the prohibition is that States must stand firm against torture by excluding the evidence it produces. [read post]
20 Jun 2019, 4:00 am
(I’m very pleased to welcome Antoine Dusséaux from Doctrine as a guest contributor on this post. [read post]
