Search for: "State v. Lord"
Results 561 - 580
of 3,605
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Oct 2015, 1:15 am
Lord Kerr (dissenting) in a poignant judgement raised a number of issues with his fellow Lord’s reasoning. [read post]
26 Jan 2013, 4:08 pm
As Lord Justice Leveson notes, the question of the relationship between the right of reply and Article 10 was considered by the Court of Human Rights in the case of Melnychuk v Ukraine (Decision of 5 July 2005). [read post]
25 Sep 2019, 4:41 pm
” A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 1 AC 68, Lord Bingham. [read post]
1 Sep 2015, 10:54 pm
Church of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ v. [read post]
28 Jun 2023, 5:34 pm
Cf Bush v. [read post]
22 Sep 2021, 4:47 am
Agreeing with Lord Sales, she accepted Singh LJ’s jurisdictional reason. [read post]
21 Feb 2011, 2:14 am
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) MD (Gambia), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 121 (17 February 2011) Test Claimants In the Thin Cap Group Litigation v HM Revenue and Customs [2011] EWCA Civ 127 (18 February 2011) Axa Sun Life Services Plc v Campbell Martin Ltd & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 133 (18 February 2011) Welford v Transport for London [2011] EWCA Civ 129 (18 February 2011) Bayat Telephone… [read post]
14 May 2012, 2:25 am
R (HH) v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, R (PH) v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa, BH (AP) and another v The Lord Advocate and another (Scotland), KAS or H (AP) v The Lord Advocate and another (Scotland) and Genoa Filipek-Kwasny v Polish Judicial Authority, heard 5 – 8 March 2012. [read post]
25 May 2010, 11:26 pm
The review of the law of libel did not get a mention in the Queen’s Speech but the indefatigable Lib Dem peer Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC is this week presenting a draft private member’s Defamation Bill to the House of Lords with the strong support of the media. [read post]
29 Jul 2011, 2:36 am
The current law is now stated in the Equality Act 2010 but the issues in this appeal remain pertinent and are not affected by the revocation of the Regulations. [read post]
30 May 2011, 9:00 am
ARTICLE V. [read post]
8 Nov 2011, 11:32 am
Lord Clarke repeated a useful quotation of Longmore LJ from Barclays Bank plc v HHY Luxembourg SARL [2010] EWCA Civ 1248: “If a clause is capable of two meanings…it is quite possible that neither meaning will flout common sense. [read post]
17 Feb 2015, 5:41 am
The 2004 decision of the House of Lords in Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers ([2004] 2 AC 457) was a significant case regarding privacy, and for human rights law and tort law more generally. [read post]
18 Jul 2018, 6:28 am
“Precarious” was not, in their Lordships’ view, “a term of art” and was similar but not identical to the guidance imparted in Jeunesse v Netherlands (2015) 60 EHRR 17 whereby family life was rendered precarious from the outset where those “involved were aware that the immigration status of one of them was such that the persistence of that family life within the host state would from the outset be precarious. [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 4:57 pm
In particular, the Council referred to the obiter words of Lord Woolf MR in Broadmoor Special Hospital Authority v Robinson [2000] QB 775: “if a public body is given a statutory responsibility which it is required to perform in the public interest, then, in the absence of an implication to the contrary in the statute, it has standing to apply to the court for an injunction to prevent interference with its performance of its public responsibilities and the courts should grant… [read post]
11 Feb 2019, 2:52 am
[Anand Agneshwar and Paige Sharpe, WLF, and on Mallory v. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 12:57 pm
Under this heading, Lord Neuberger recounted the intervention of the BioIndustry Association (BIA), which was stated to represent members with an aggregate turnover in 2010 of £5.5 billion. [read post]
16 Jun 2023, 1:29 am
Since, however, this court is bound by Novo, it is for the Supreme Court to decide whether to depart from the law as stated by Lord Dyson in that case”. [read post]
19 May 2015, 2:20 am
The prosecution appealed to the Supreme Court, and the appeal was heard on 24 February 2015 by Lord Neuberger, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes and Lord Toulson. [read post]
27 Nov 2013, 2:20 am
The Court stated that its judgment does not favour sexual orientation over religious belief – had the respondents refused rooms to the appellants because of their Christian beliefs, the appellants would have been equally protected by the prohibition of discrimination. [read post]
