Search for: "State v. Lord"
Results 601 - 620
of 3,607
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Oct 2011, 10:00 pm
R (on the application of Quila and another) (FC) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant); R (on the application of Bibi and another) (FC) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) [2011] UKSC 45 – read judgment. [read post]
8 Jan 2020, 4:28 am
And further dispute arose between Sheeran's song 'Photograph' (also written by the first and third claimants; Sheeran and McDaid) and a song called 'Amazing', following which there was a settlement agreement and 35% of the PRS royalties now go to the writers of 'Amazing'.Naturally, the Claimants sought to strike out these allegations, which came before Deputy Master Jefferis on 4 June 2019 on the basis that similar fact evidence is only admissible in civil… [read post]
23 May 2021, 4:08 pm
On 20 May 2021 the BBC published a Report by former Master of the Rolls and Supreme Court Justice, Lord Dyson into the circumstances of how BBC reporter Martin Bashir came to interview Princess Diana for the BBC Panorama in November 1995. [read post]
16 Nov 2020, 2:13 am
Lord Kerr gave the dissenting judgment, with which Lord Reed agreed: they would both have allowed the appeal. [read post]
15 May 2012, 1:04 am
Following on Bahta & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 895 [Our report] and Lord Jackson’s view on JR costs, the Court of Appeal in M v London Borough of Croydon [2012] EWCA Civ 595 has given general guidance for awarding costs. [read post]
15 May 2012, 1:04 am
Following on Bahta & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 895 [Our report] and Lord Jackson’s view on JR costs, the Court of Appeal in M v London Borough of Croydon [2012] EWCA Civ 595 has given general guidance for awarding costs. [read post]
26 Oct 2021, 8:21 am
Lord Burrows stated the illegitimacy of the threat would have been determined with reference to the justification for the demand. [read post]
15 Jun 2011, 3:27 am
"Lord Justice Rimer and Lord Justice Elias gave consenting judgments. [read post]
1 Jul 2011, 10:06 am
Lord Mance stated that “in matters of statutory construction, the statutory purpose and general scheme by which it is to be put into effect are of central importance. [read post]
10 Feb 2010, 3:16 am
“The following seven paragraphs have been redacted [It was reported that a new series of interviews was conducted by the United States authorities prior to 17 May 2001 as part of a new strategy designed by an expert interviewer. v) It was reported that at some stage during that further interview process by the United States authorities, BM had been intentionally subjected to continuous sleep deprivation. [read post]
29 Mar 2007, 5:51 am
Relying on Rowinski v. [read post]
23 Nov 2017, 3:44 am
Perhaps surprisingly, the Court unequivocally departs from its decision in R (Kaiyam) v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] UKSC 66 (decided less than three years earlier) to endorse the narrower understanding of the obligation set down by the ECtHR in James v UK (App no. 25119/09). [read post]
25 Jun 2018, 2:23 pm
” Waltersheid, The Early Evolution of the United States Patent Law: Antecedents (Part 3), 77 J. [read post]
4 Feb 2009, 8:16 am
The House of Lords Opinions in Holmes-Moorhouse v LB Richmond upon Thames [2009] UKHL 7 were handed down today. [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 6:07 am
AXA General Insurance Ltd & Ors v Lord Advocate & Ors (Scotland) [2011] UKSC 46 (12 October 2011) When you breathed in asbestos fibres from your dusty shipbuilding job on the River Clyde in the 1950s and 1960s, some of those fibres stuck around in the lungs. [read post]
14 Jul 2021, 6:46 am
The Court of Appeal decision The lead judgment, with which Lord Justices Phillips and Moylan agreed, was given by Lord Justice Males. [read post]
15 Jul 2012, 5:10 pm
On 20 July 2012 there will be an application in the case of Lord Ashcroft v Foley. [read post]
13 Nov 2008, 6:14 pm
As Lord Hope stated at [31]: The principle of proportionality requires that the means employed to achieve an aim recognised by Community law as legitimate correspond to the importance of that aim and are necessary for its achievement. [read post]
18 Jan 2017, 7:28 am
In brief, the case of R v Egan [1992] 4 All ER 470 had stated (without the court having heard full argument) that the previous case of R v Lloyd [1967] 1 QB 175 legitimised two approaches to defining ‘substantial’ in the context of diminished responsibility. [read post]
28 Nov 2014, 3:17 am
Lord Toulson’s judgment Lord Toulson reached the same ultimate conclusion as the other Lords but agreed with the approach taken by the Court of Appeal that, given the defence itself is based on public policy, it is right that other public policy considerations should be taken into account (Hounga v Allen [2014] UKSC 47). [read post]
