Search for: "Word v. Lord"
Results 41 - 60
of 2,054
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Oct 2023, 4:30 pm
It is an essential element of the cause of action for defamation that the words complained of should be published “of and concerning” the claimant: Knuppfer v London Express Newspaper Ltd [1944] AC 116, 121 [1944] UKHL 1 (03 April 1944) 19. [read post]
1 Oct 2023, 9:03 pm
For example, in the 1914 case Harris v. [read post]
1 Oct 2023, 6:30 am
Thus in O, Lord Hodge notes, Words and passages in a statute derive their meaning from their context. [read post]
1 Oct 2023, 1:32 am
Rabiat Akande & Faisal Bhabha, Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper: Insulating the Church: Ethiopian Orthodox Church of Canada v. [read post]
10 Sep 2023, 12:06 pm
It is difficult to align the interpretation of G 2/21 by Lord Justice Arnold in Sandoz v BMS with the Board of Appeal decision in T 0116/18 reported in the minutes of oral proceedings. [read post]
5 Sep 2023, 12:33 am
The Human Rights Act ‘generally excludes economic, social and cultural rights’[18] and the word ‘poverty’ is not mentioned in the Act. [read post]
3 Sep 2023, 4:43 pm
IPSO Satisfactory Remedy – 18621-23 Booley v ok.co.uk, 1 Accuracy (2021), Resolved – satisfactory remedy 18524-23 Barnwell v The Times, 1 Accuracy (2021), No breach – after investigation 18355-23 A complainant v nationalworld.com, 14 Confidential sources (2021), No breach – after investigation Satisfactory Remedy – 17293-23 Reynolds v swindonadvertiser.co.uk, 1 Accuracy (2021), Resolved – satisfactory remedy 18392-23 Marshall De… [read post]
24 Aug 2023, 2:50 pm
From Tomlinson v. [read post]
23 Aug 2023, 7:45 pm
[ii] But one also speaks to the relationship between a domus and its dominus—its lord, master, owner, or overseer (perhaps captured by the old term 掌握 (Zhǎngwò) with its sense of also understanding things and making use of them). [read post]
17 Aug 2023, 6:37 am
One such decision was that in Mimo Connect v Buley & Ors, which ended up in the Court of Appeal a month ago with the decision of Lord Justice Bean (giving Judgment of the Court) handed down two weeks ago ([2023] EWCA Civ 909).BackgroundAs she said in the last post, trade secrets cases are full of facts, so buckle in. [read post]
16 Aug 2023, 4:55 pm
” Mostyn J had rested his conclusion on the mandatory nature of the wording of para 13 of the 2015 Practice Direction. [read post]
16 Aug 2023, 4:00 am
She previously authored The Legal History of the Presidential Management Fellows Program and Hansberry v. [read post]
11 Aug 2023, 8:40 am
Background This case concerns the meaning of the words deliberate concealment for the purposes of s 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 (“LA 1980”). [read post]
8 Aug 2023, 1:00 am
Accordingly, as recently summarised by Lord Justice Arnold, the three key considerations for claim interpretation in the UK are 1) the wording of the claim, 2) the context provided by the specification and 3) the inventor’s purpose (InterDigital v Lenovo [2023] EWCA Civ 105). [read post]
6 Aug 2023, 10:00 pm
It’s not for nothing that Lord Acton’s comment in his 1887 letter to Bishop Creighton was ‘Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. [read post]
29 Jul 2023, 3:48 am
The hypothetical viewer would also have paid attention to the words used in the broadcast referring to an “iconic British company”. [read post]
28 Jul 2023, 12:13 pm
From Wednesday's decision in Wright v. [read post]
27 Jul 2023, 6:28 pm
" (Hugh Hall Campbell, KC v. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 3:44 am
Furthermore, as discussed below, in attempting to reconcile G 2/21 with the Supreme Court decision in Warner-Lambert, Lord Justice Arnold (Arnold LJ) in Sandoz v BMS is forced to disagree with the interpretation that G 2/21 supports the established "lack of ab initio implausibility" standard. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 1:42 am
Unlike the EPO, Lord Justice Arnold (Arnold LJ) in Sandoz v BMS considers the "plausibility" of a non-claimed technical effect under the heading of inventive step and sufficiency. [read post]
