Search for: "Cranston v. Cranston"
Results 41 - 60
of 72
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Apr 2017, 4:32 pm
These statistics are clearly incomplete as there are public judgments in five privacy injunction applications in 2016 PJS v News Group Newspapers , Cranston J, 18 January 2016, refused, granted by the Court of Appeal on 22 January 2016 ([2016] EWCA Civ 100)(see Inforrm Case Comment) – this was, of course, later subject to an application to discharge which was dismissed by the Supreme Court. [read post]
20 Nov 2011, 11:32 am
Under Cranston v. [read post]
17 May 2021, 1:20 pm
ShareOn Monday, the Supreme Court released its opinion in Caniglia v. [read post]
31 May 2016, 10:24 am
Cactus Club Cabaret Ltd. for hospitality industry professionals, and top 10 need-to-know facts about R. v. [read post]
17 Jun 2013, 3:37 pm
(As it is an ongoing case, all apparent statements of fact are as set out in the judgment and should be taken as being untested at trial).Leicester Housing Association Ltd v Armstrong. [read post]
20 Nov 2020, 11:15 am
In Caniglia v. [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 9:31 am
” In the 1987 case of Edwards v. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 2:52 pm
Mrs Justice Rafferty noted the Croatian cases, and the observation of Cranston J in Coombes v Waltham Forest LBC [2010] EWHC 666 Admin that There is an obvious conflict between the Strasbourg jurisprudence and our own However, following Husband v Solihull MBC [2009] EWHC 3673 (Admin) and Wandsworth LBC v Dixon [2009] EWHC 27 [links to our reports], Qazi was held to be solid precdent that the rule in Monk was compatible with Art 8. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 2:52 pm
Mrs Justice Rafferty noted the Croatian cases, and the observation of Cranston J in Coombes v Waltham Forest LBC [2010] EWHC 666 Admin that There is an obvious conflict between the Strasbourg jurisprudence and our own However, following Husband v Solihull MBC [2009] EWHC 3673 (Admin) and Wandsworth LBC v Dixon [2009] EWHC 27 [links to our reports], Qazi was held to be solid precdent that the rule in Monk was compatible with Art 8. [read post]
19 May 2016, 3:22 am
” On this basis, and for various other reasons, the Court of Appeal concluded that the Claimant was not “likely” to obtain a final injunction at trial in accordance with the test set out in section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”) and the judgment of Lord Nicholls in Cream Holdings v Banerjee ([2005] 1 AC 253), and therefore lifted the injunction that it had previously granted. [read post]
1 Jul 2018, 9:05 am
Kilmartin v. [read post]
20 May 2016, 2:11 am
PJS applied for an urgent interim injunction to prevent the publication on 15 January, which was refused by Cranston J, who also granted permission for PJS to appeal. [read post]
28 Mar 2024, 2:12 pm
Co. v. [read post]
8 Feb 2017, 8:22 am
She also noted [at 50] that in Comic Enterprises Ltd v. [read post]
18 Aug 2009, 2:12 pm
” [para 34] Cranston LJ agreed. [read post]
28 Jul 2021, 8:49 am
In this post, Tim Sales, a partner in the Dispute Resolution team at CMS, and Hannah Jones, who works in the Tax team at CMS, comment on the decision handed down by the UK Supreme Court in the matter of R (on the application of Haworth) v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2021] UKSC 25. [read post]
30 Oct 2013, 4:30 am
In United States v. [read post]
22 Sep 2009, 12:58 pm
Held by Cranston J: The Council had considered the Mohammed factors and its letter set out the findings in relation to each of the three factors. [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 6:18 am
City of Cranston, 2010-87 (R.I. [read post]
13 Jul 2010, 10:00 am
On this basis, Cranston J in the High Court said that these rights were not directly enforceable against the United Kingdom, that the Charter was an aid to interpretation only. [read post]
