Search for: "Word v. Lord"
Results 541 - 560
of 2,056
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Mar 2016, 2:49 am
The claimant had done nothing that could be considered aggressive of abusive when Mr Khan attacked him and told him in threatening words never to return. [read post]
10 May 2018, 11:12 pm
Remington [1990] FSR 181; and Kirin-Amgen v. [read post]
27 Feb 2012, 10:28 pm
This was particularly troubling when, in the words of Lord Justice McGonigal, the counter-terrorism law then in force ‘leaves it open to an interviewer to use a moderate degree of physical maltreatment for the purpose of inducing a person to make a statement’ (R v McCormick (1977) NI 105, 111). [read post]
3 Dec 2020, 6:02 am
From Bauer v. [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 10:08 pm
So all member state courts, however humble, can determine matters of EU law, a state of affairs which in Lord Neuberger’s words “has important consequences. [read post]
19 Nov 2019, 4:18 pm
This will provide some additional clarity on the correct application of the principles set out by Lord Sumption in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27. [read post]
13 Feb 2022, 5:39 pm
In assessing the opposing interests the word one finds repeated throughout the cases is the word “reasonable. [read post]
16 Nov 2020, 1:00 am
The proposed panel for hand down is Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Carnwath, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs, Lord Sales, and Lord Hamblen. [read post]
23 Oct 2010, 4:40 am
With one qualification that we will discuss below, the Supreme Court now appears to have clarified that this is the case, in Dozco India v Doosan, decided on 5 October, 2010. [read post]
30 Aug 2019, 10:28 am
In other words, was it open to Photobox to narrow the scope of the undertakings to trial? [read post]
11 Nov 2021, 4:30 am
The first thing to point out is that whilst Lord Leggatt was keen to point out that the wording of the GDPR was of no assistance to the court in reaching its decision concerning the old law under the DPA 1998, the reasoning applies in full to the new regime. [read post]
25 Dec 2007, 10:32 am
Stewart v. [read post]
13 Nov 2023, 4:57 pm
The natural and ordinary meaning Citing Lord Bridge in Charleston v News Group Newspapers [1995] 2 AC 65, Master Bell emphasised that in order to determine the natural and ordinary meaning of the words of which a plaintiff complains, one must consider the context in which the words were used and the mode of publication [8]. [read post]
10 Jan 2013, 12:54 am
’ [57] The Court of Appeal noted that in R v Brown [2011] EWCA Crim 2571 Lord Judge CJ had reached a similar conclusion: ‘[I]t is difficult to see how a criminal act of distribution or circulation of a terrorist publication with the specific intent, or in the frame of mind expressly required as an essential ingredient of this offence to encourage or assist acts of terrorism, can be saved by reference to the principle of freedom of speech, unless that principle is… [read post]
24 Dec 2013, 5:45 am
Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd., [2001] 1 All E.R. 700 (H.L.), at p. 706, per Lord Hoffmann; see also Nichols v. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 6:00 am
The House of Lords held that the words were not capable of referring to him. [read post]
18 Oct 2015, 9:32 am
As Lord Hoffmann said in the Privy Council libel case of Gleaner v Abrahams ([2004] 1 AC 628) “Personal injury awards are almost always made in actions based on negligence or breach of statutory duty rather than intentional wrongdoing. [read post]
1 Apr 2022, 7:43 am
Interestingly, Lord Briggs (who joined the majority), noted that “the simple test proposed by Lady Arden and Lord Burrows may occasionally involve the recognition of the equitable lien in wider circumstances than is strictly justified by its animating access to justice principle. [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 7:04 am
All this led the IPKat to think, perhaps rather egotistically, that his (and some of his readers') words on how the Court of Appeal might have got it wrong in Actavis v Novartis could have had some effect. [read post]
25 Jul 2014, 3:36 am
However in Spencer v. [read post]
