Search for: "Begum v. Begum"
Results 41 - 60
of 104
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Apr 2022, 8:06 am
Ground 4 Mr Crosland submitted that pursuant to the Attorney General’s obligations of disclosure under Article 6 ECHR and s 3 of the Criminal Procedure Investigations Act 1997, Mr Crosland should have been given information about an alleged breach of the embargo on court judgments in the case of Begum v Special Immigration Appeals Commission [2020] EWCA Civ 918. [read post]
29 Dec 2008, 5:48 am
As Lord Scarman said in R v Home Secretary ex p. [read post]
9 Jun 2007, 11:52 pm
Ahmed Khan v. [read post]
15 Jan 2017, 11:37 am
This was followed in Rikha Begum v LB of Tower Hamlets [2005] EWCA Civ 340. [read post]
10 Oct 2021, 1:21 pm
In my judgment the reasoning of the House of Lords in Fahia (R v Harrow LBC, ex p Fahia(1998) 1 WLR 1396, HL) provides no basis for that contention, nor did the Court of Appeal in Begum (R. v. [read post]
19 Feb 2022, 10:55 am
I consider them to demonstrate a process prohibited by Fahia as confirmed in Begum. [read post]
17 Apr 2024, 2:05 am
Further, in R (Begum) v Governors of Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15, the House of Lords had held that there had been no limitation placed by a school on the freedom of a female Muslim pupil when it refused to allow her to manifest her religious beliefs by wearing the jilbab coat because the uniform policy of the school did not permit it [145]. [read post]
20 Jul 2020, 2:26 am
This appeal will consider whether the courts below were correct to hold that Nushrat Begum Abdul is the biological daughter of Abdullah Rossan Ally Peer Ally Khan (the Deceased). [read post]
19 Nov 2022, 5:59 am
Parachini The Just Security Podcast: United States v. [read post]
31 May 2009, 10:24 am
And deciding Art 6 compliance requires a view to the composite decision-making process, including but not limited to the judicial review process (R (Alconbury Developments Limited) v SS for the Environment, Transport and Regions [2003] 2 AC 295, Runa Begum [2003] 2 AC 430 and Adan v Newham LBC [2002] 1 WLR 2120. [read post]
15 Feb 2019, 1:58 am
The argument appears to have proceeded initially on the narrow basis of what kind of factual change justifies a further review, based on Rikha Begum. [read post]
2 Mar 2019, 6:57 am
Eliot Kim summarized the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jam v. [read post]
2 Jul 2008, 6:18 pm
AHMED AFEEF, MARYAM BEGUM AFEEF AND ENM FOOD MART, INC.; from Bexar County; 4th district (04-07-00249-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 02-20-08)08-0310MICHAEL M. [read post]
1 Apr 2019, 3:06 pm
A person who is entitled to occupy suitable temporary accommodation is not homeless: R v Brent LBC ex p Awua at 67; Muse v Brent LBC at (35); Haile v Waltham Forest LBC at (48). [read post]
20 Dec 2019, 11:49 am
Bukartyk, R (on the application of) v Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (2019) EWHC 3480 (Admin) A judicial review of a refusal to take a second homeless application which should really be put in the ‘Councils, don’t do this’ list of things that councils shouldn’t do. [read post]
10 Jun 2008, 9:53 pm
Mrs Begum [Mr Ahad's wife] indicated to our client that he could accept the property if he wished, but that she would not move to the property and neither would their three children. [read post]
21 May 2017, 2:42 pm
Instead the Chamber concentrated its attention on two admittedly obiter statements, respectively by Hale LJ (as she then was) in the Court of Appeal in Adan, and Lord Millett in Runa Begum. [read post]
7 Jul 2012, 12:16 pm
May, R (on the application of) v Birmingham City Council [2012] EWHC 1399 (Admin)When can a Local Authority refuse to accept an application as homeless? [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 10:29 am
/**/ R (A) v Croydon & R (M) v Lambeth UKSC [2009] 8 This was an appeal heard by the House of Lords over the course of four days in July, but with judgment delivered by the new Supreme Court. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 10:29 am
/**/ R (A) v Croydon & R (M) v Lambeth UKSC [2009] 8 This was an appeal heard by the House of Lords over the course of four days in July, but with judgment delivered by the new Supreme Court. [read post]
