Search for: "People v. Neuberger"
Results 41 - 60
of 163
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Apr 2016, 3:01 am
Link to part 1- http://ukscblog.com/new-judgment-jetivia-sa-anor-v-bilta-uk-ltd-ors-2015-uksc-23-part-1/ [read post]
4 Mar 2016, 6:58 am
Lord Neuberger reads the judgment. [read post]
5 Feb 2016, 8:30 am
The first two articles are from quite possibly the most authoritative people who could speak about the Yearbook—i.e., the President and Deputy President of the UK Supreme Court. [read post]
8 Jan 2016, 10:03 am
Lord Neuberger was also keen to stress that commercial common sense (which had been applied in Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50 where there was ambiguity in the interpretation of a clause) should not be “invoked to undervalue the importance of the language of the provision which is to be construed”. [read post]
1 Jan 2016, 1:13 pm
For an example of the Upper Tribunal interpreting Lord Neuberger’s principles, see our report here. [read post]
19 Dec 2015, 9:57 am
She feels particularly vulnerable to most people being men late at night, often under the influence of alcohol. [read post]
8 Dec 2015, 9:17 am
In Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Limited & Anor, the Supreme Court has given judgments that will not be welcomed by the tenant community. [read post]
6 Oct 2015, 4:30 am
As Lord Neuberger explained, the assessment of what is an “ordinary homeless person” was more likely to lead to “arbitrary and unpredictable outcomes” and to result in support being denied to very needy people ([56]). [read post]
5 Oct 2015, 1:00 am
I believe our chief executive and her team, our press officers, have done enormously well in public outreach and I think we now have over 100,000 people a year coming through the door. [read post]
17 Aug 2015, 4:15 am
In a media release, the penal reform charity notes that in its experience of working in prisons, carrying out research and representing young people in custody, “segregating vulnerable and disturbed people tends to make their problems worse”. [read post]
11 Aug 2015, 2:00 am
The majority, agreeing with Girvan LJ in the Divisional Court, held that the ECtHR in S and Marper v UK [2009] 48 EHRR 50 was not considering the position of convicted people [2], and confined the principles of the Strasbourg decision to the retention of data obtained from unconvicted persons. [read post]
6 Aug 2015, 5:09 am
In the case of Pham (formerly “B2”), Lord Neuberger PSC, Lady Hale DPSC and Lord Mance, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed and Lord Carnwath JJSC unanimously dismissed the suspected terrorist’s appeal. [read post]
1 Aug 2015, 2:36 pm
See A and B v Rotherham MBC [2014] EWFC 47 Fam. [read post]
30 Jul 2015, 1:52 am
It held that for this purpose it is not sufficient that people resident in the jurisdiction may be customers of the claimant when they go abroad, although it could be enough if people in the jurisdiction obtain the right to receive a claimant’s services abroad by booking with, or purchasing from, an entity in this country, even if that entity is not part of the claimant. [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 1:00 am
The islands’ indigenous population, known as Chaogossians, was a very small community of fewer than 1,000 people who lived in extremely simple lifestyle. [read post]
22 Jun 2015, 7:43 am
Thus in Pham v. [read post]
10 Jun 2015, 6:45 am
But there we go – that is the “Carrollian” effect of the rule to which both Lord Neuberger and Baroness Hale referred. [read post]
29 May 2015, 1:36 am
What needs to be said, however, is that Lord Diplock's comments in Star Industrial Co Ltd v Yap Kwee Kor further support Lord Neuberger's conclusions and highlight the distinction between goodwill in different jurisdictions through the existence of separation of judiciaries; i.e. not one court can decide an issue of a foreign court. [read post]
21 May 2015, 4:43 am
Haile, on the other hand, attempts to steer a line between accepting the jurisprudence on intentionality but distinguishing it on a narrow basis (Lord Reed, with whom Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale and Lord Clarke agreed – Lord Neuberger, in the majority, doing so with hesitation, at [79]; Lord Carnwath dissenting). [read post]
20 May 2015, 3:02 am
” Lord Neuberger, in his concurring judgment, agrees: “While I agree that many people would regard the book as being in some respects in the public interest, it is not necessary to decide this appeal on that ground. [read post]
