Search for: "LJ"
Results 621 - 640
of 2,405
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jul 2017, 1:55 pm
In any event, I agree with Longmore LJ’s analysis of the operation of section 191(2) in Najim. [read post]
11 Jul 2017, 10:40 am
Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid & Amy Mittelman, Gender Biases in Cyberspace: A Two-Stage Model, the New Arena of Wikipedia and Other Websites, 26 Fordham IP, Media & Entertainment LJ (2016) Abstract Increasingly, there has been a focus on creating democratic standards and... [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 7:00 am
In the Court of Appeal ([2015] EWCA Civ 646 [2016] QB 161) Laws LJ (with whom Lord Dyson MR and Kitchin LJ agreed) robustly rejected the MPS’ appeal from Green J’s finding in favour of the claimants. [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 2:46 am
Allowing the onward appeals in part, Richards LJ granted permission to apply for judicial review but he would have dismissed both appellants’ substantive claims. [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 2:46 am
Lord Carnwath agreed with Richards LJ that art 8 does not require access to the best possible procedure, but only access to an effective and fair procedure. [read post]
9 Jul 2017, 4:08 pm
On 7 July 2017, the Court of Appeal (Master of the Rolls, Longmore and Sharp LJ) handed down judgment in the case of Brevan Howard Asset Management v Reuters [2017] EWCA Civ 950. [read post]
7 Jul 2017, 12:46 pm
Laura von HerzenThe Court of Appeal (Floyd LJ, Kitchin LJ and Longmore LJ) held that there was no issue of principle which prevented the courts from exercising their discretion to grant declarations of the type postulated in Arrow Generics Ltd (i.e. declarations that a product was old or obvious in patent law terms at a particular date) in appropriate cases. [read post]
7 Jul 2017, 12:46 pm
Laura von HerzenThe Court of Appeal (Floyd LJ, Kitchin LJ and Longmore LJ) held that there was no issue of principle which prevented the courts from exercising their discretion to grant declarations of the type postulated in Arrow Generics Ltd (i.e. declarations that a product was old or obvious in patent law terms at a particular date) in appropriate cases. [read post]
7 Jul 2017, 8:53 am
In June 2015, The Court of Appeal (Floyd LJ giving the leading judgment) upheld Arnold J’s finding of no direct infringement but overturned his finding of no indirect infringement due to the AIs generally being dissolved in saline solution which provided a source of sodium ions. [read post]
7 Jul 2017, 8:53 am
In June 2015, The Court of Appeal (Floyd LJ giving the leading judgment) upheld Arnold J’s finding of no direct infringement but overturned his finding of no indirect infringement due to the AIs generally being dissolved in saline solution which provided a source of sodium ions. [read post]
6 Jul 2017, 8:50 am
The Court of Appeal’s position, in a judgment given by Arden LJ, was that the current entitlements for Zambrano carers are lawful. [read post]
4 Jul 2017, 4:30 pm
Rejecting the appeal, and applying Barnet v Crozier, Sharp LJ observed that ‘the court is unlikely to intervene in the absence of any real or substantial unfairness to the objecting or other third party and ‘nit-picks’ are to be discouraged’. [read post]
3 Jul 2017, 2:00 pm
" (ljs) [read post]
2 Jul 2017, 4:03 pm
On the same day Macfarlane LJ refused permission to appeal in the long running application in the case of Lokhova v Tymula. [read post]
30 Jun 2017, 11:52 am
As Sedley LJ observed in Orr v Milton Keynes, the meaning of these provisions is “both problematical and contentious”. [read post]
25 Jun 2017, 4:11 pm
On 20 June 2017 Macfarlane LJ heard an application for permission to appeal and a stay in the case of Lokhova v Tymula. [read post]
22 Jun 2017, 2:00 pm
(ljs) [read post]
20 Jun 2017, 2:00 pm
(ljs) [read post]
18 Jun 2017, 2:00 pm
(ljs) [read post]
11 Jun 2017, 2:00 pm
(ljs) [read post]
