Search for: "M/V Lord"
Results 561 - 580
of 915
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Nov 2011, 9:35 pm
I'm not.And indeed there will be timeTo wonder, “Do I dare? [read blog]
6 Nov 2011, 9:35 pm
I'm not.And indeed there will be timeTo wonder, “Do I dare? [read post]
6 Nov 2011, 7:50 am
Mr M requested a review. [read post]
6 Nov 2011, 7:50 am
Mr M requested a review. [read post]
5 Nov 2011, 11:46 am
Rama Subha Aiyar (1886) 11 M. [read post]
4 Nov 2011, 1:42 am
The bottom-line is that this does appear to be a chance for people who were treated unfairly as part of the foreclosure process (and Lord knows there are plenty who fall into that category) to get a shot at some justice, and potentially be compensated for losses resulting from the unfair treatment. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 12:40 pm
Sections 35 and 35A have been considered recently by this Court in Salem Advocates Bar Association v. [read post]
28 Oct 2011, 7:00 am
App. 2008) (“[t]here can be no proximate cause where, as in this case, the prescribing physician did not read or rely upon the allegedly inadequate warnings promulgated by a defendant about a product”); Lord v. [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 5:00 am
Jonathan M. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 10:21 am
I’m delighted that Amanda will be a regular on our Without Prejudice podcasts. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 1:42 am
v=43f2bBjGi_8 Now, that’s quite a quirky repertory, and it stands in favorable comparison to Tom’s: the periodic table, plagiarism, pollution, the new math, the Vatican II conference, and of course the silent letter ‘e’. [read post]
19 Oct 2011, 6:41 am
I’m not a family lawyer – but Natasha Phillips is and her Researching Reform blog often ‘Questions it’ and provides insight into the rights and wrongs of our family justice system. [read post]
10 Oct 2011, 5:47 am
The correct approach, he said, was that used by Lord Scarman in Reg. v. [read post]
9 Oct 2011, 12:14 pm
Fric and Lauren Tomasich, for the defendant (appellant)Kirk M. [read post]
7 Oct 2011, 8:47 am
Ambrose Harris (Procurator Fiscal), HM Advocate v G : HM Advocate v M [2011] UKSC 43 (6 October 2011) – read judgment Reliance on evidence that emerged from questioning a person without access to a lawyer did not invariably breach the right to a fair trial under Article 6. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 2:39 am
By a majority of 4 to 1, the Court found that, in the cases of Ambrose and M, the act of the Lord Advocate in leading and relying at the trial on the evidence that was obtained from them in response to police questioning without having had access to legal advice was not incompatible with the art 6(1) and (3)(c) right; and in the case of G that it was incompatible. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 2:39 am
By a majority of 4 to 1, the Court found that, in the cases of Ambrose and M, the act of the Lord Advocate in leading and relying at the trial on the evidence that was obtained from them in response to police questioning without having had access to legal advice was not incompatible with the art 6(1) and (3)(c) right; and in the case of G that it was incompatible. [read post]
22 Sep 2011, 4:02 am
I’m a bit behind the curve on this one. [read post]
15 Sep 2011, 7:10 am
The review group, headed by Lord McCluskey, was set up by Alex Salmond after the Supreme Court decisions in Cadder v HM Advocate [2010] UKSC 43, Fraser v Her Majesty’s Advocate [2011] UKSC24 and in anticipation of the decisions in HM Advocate v Ambrose, G & M. [read post]
13 Sep 2011, 1:12 pm
The use of the words "in its discretion" in Article 136 clearly indicates that Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal upon any party but merely vests a discretion in the Supreme Court to interfere in exceptional cases vide M/s. [read post]
