Search for: "Reed v. Clarke"
Results 41 - 60
of 162
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Apr 2022, 12:56 pm
Consider this summary of the law from Reed v. [read post]
20 Apr 2015, 5:28 am
Lords Neuberger and Lord Reed disagreed. [read post]
6 Nov 2015, 7:30 am
The case was heard by Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed and Lord Toulson. [read post]
9 Sep 2009, 12:18 pm
Reed, 381 N.J. [read post]
20 May 2009, 3:15 am
Why the Court never heard Bush v. [read post]
20 Apr 2017, 2:00 am
The Court of Appeal Allowing the ECO’s appeal, Laws, Kitchin and Christopher Clarke LJJ held that SM was not entitled to entry clearance because under the provisions of the 2006 Regulations she could not be categorised as a family member, extended family member or relative of her adoptive parents. [read post]
7 Aug 2013, 4:10 am
In a judgment handed down on 17 July 2013, the Supreme Court (leading opinion of Lord Sumption, with which Lords Hope, Clarke, and Reed agreed, and a separate opinion of Lord Carnwath concurring in the result but not some of the reasoning) rejected a challenge to the Secretary of State’s power to operate the scheme of licensing educational institutions to sponsor non-European Economic Area (EEA) migrants to come to the UK to study under Tier-4 of the points-based visa system.… [read post]
15 Apr 2010, 8:55 am
Reed, 381 N.J. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 1:32 pm
Reed, 381 N.J. [read post]
30 Jan 2012, 4:29 am
In the Privy Council starting on Wednesday 1 February 2012 is the hearing of Sans Souci Ltd v VRL Services Ltd, which will be heard by Lady Paton and Lords Hope, Clarke, Sumption, and Reed. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 10:48 am
On 6 July 2011, the UKSC delivered its judgment in Scottish Widows plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Scotland); Scottish Widows plc No 2 v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Scotland); Scottish Widows plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Scotland) [2011] UKSC 32. [read post]
29 Aug 2013, 4:00 am
West London Mental Health NHS Trust v Chhabra [2013] EWCA Civ 11 – granted on 3 July 2013 by Lady Hale, Lord Clarke and Lord Carnwath. [read post]
22 Aug 2016, 6:51 am
Lords Neuberger, Mance, Sumption and Reed each gave a separate dissenting judgment. [read post]
6 Aug 2017, 4:42 pm
Judgment of the Supreme Court Lord Sumption (with whom Lady Hale and Lords Neuberger, Clarke and Reed agreed) gave the judgment of the majority. [read post]
3 Mar 2009, 5:53 am
In Thomas v. [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 3:26 am
From Tuesday 20 March 2012 over three days are the linked appeals of Perry & Ors v Serious Organised Crime Agency and Perry & Ors (No. 2) v Serious Organised Crime Agency, which will be heard by a panel of nine (L Phillips, L Hale, L Brown, L Judge, L Kerr, L Wilson, L Clarke, L Reed and Sir Anthony Hughes). [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 10:48 am
On 6 July 2011, the UKSC delivered its judgment in Scottish Widows plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Scotland); Scottish Widows plc No 2 v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Scotland); Scottish Widows plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Scotland) [2011] UKSC 32. [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 8:31 am
The extra hearing is scheduled in order to hear representations on a number of important issues of principle in relation to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which were not fully explored at the original hearing, and will be heard by a panel of nine (Lady Hale, Lords Phillips, Walker, Judge, Kerr, Clarke, Wilson and Reed and Sir Anthony Hughes). [read post]
5 Mar 2012, 2:11 am
On Thursday 8 March the same panel (L Phillips, L Clarke, L Dyson, L Sumption and L Reed) will hear Marcus Jason Daniel v The State, another appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago concerning whether fresh evidence as to the appellant’s mental health should be admitted and the case remitted to the Court of Appeal to consider the safety of the conviction. [read post]
10 Feb 2017, 7:34 am
The majority (Lords Neuberger, Toulson, Reed and Sumption) held that it was not reasonable to expect a more peremptory notice. [read post]
