Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 621 - 640
of 3,587
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jan 2009, 8:15 am
Lord Justice Moore-Bick, in the leading judgment, stated:"…I should make it clear that there is nothing unreasonable in my view in entering into a simple CFA at a time when liability has been admitted provided that the parties make a proper assessment of the inevitably much reduced risk of failure. [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]
20 Feb 2015, 4:57 am
However, distinguishing the present case from the leading case of Osman v UK (1998) 29 EHRR 245, Lord Justice Longmore held that the claim for a breach of the ECHR, art 2 should go to trial. [read post]
17 Oct 2014, 7:23 am
At Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, Marci Hamilton looks at the possibility that state legislators can nullify the effect of last Term’s decision in Burwell v. [read post]
25 Apr 2016, 6:25 am
Lord Hodge relied on dicta from Fawcett Properties Ltd v Buckingham County Council [1961] AC 636, which held that a planning condition can only be void for uncertainty if it can be given no sensible or ascertainable meaning. [read post]
2 Oct 2014, 5:07 pm
” (Hayes v Willoughby [2013] UKSC 17) – read David Hart’s post on this case for a detailed exposition of Lord Sumption’s analysis of the ingredients of harassment. [read post]
28 Jun 2007, 10:03 am
IPKat flagged a question this week from Neal Macrossan, the inventor behind the high-profile Aerotel v Telco Holdings case on software patenting (in essence, should Macrossan appeal to the House of Lords?). [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 9:06 am
Obviously, not every case lends itself to having the facts and principles stated so succinctly by one justice. [read post]
12 Apr 2011, 10:00 pm
In Lord Tyne’s view, the words in 20(2)(b) ”under the same conditions as nationals of that State” which follow the comma are “critical”. [read post]
8 Apr 2015, 2:07 am
Lady Hale and Lord Toulson had no such qualms. [read post]
24 Feb 2022, 6:31 am
In the meantime, the Lord Advocate continued to pursue extradition proceedings against the appellant. [read post]
9 Aug 2017, 3:09 am
This has been the subject of recent case law (including ERY v Associated Newspapers [2016] EWHC 2760 (QB) and ZXC v Bloomberg [2017] EWHC 328 (QB)) and non-judicial consideration (e.g., the Henriques Review and the College of Policing Guidance on Relationships with the Media). [read post]
13 May 2012, 5:55 am
After two days of argument (spread over three days due to the State Opening of Parliament) judgment was reserved. [read post]
3 Sep 2011, 2:27 am
" Turning to the authorities, Mr Justice Moylan stated (at paragraph 61): "My task is to determine "the division of property which best achieves the fair overall outcome": Charman v. [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 12:00 am
But, he stated, the criminal offence of conspiracy is a continuing offence. [read post]
Case Comment: Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60 Part One
13 Mar 2017, 2:42 am
Lord Kerr dissented save in respect of the ‘complete code’ issue in a careful and detailed exposition of the issues running to 30 pages (half of the judgment). [read post]
20 Oct 2016, 4:31 pm
Lord Toulson noted the frequently quoted words of Lord Hoffmann in R v Secretary of State for the Home Office, Ex p Simms ([2000] 2 AC 115) that “Fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous words” and said importantly that “while Lord Hoffmann said that this presumption will apply “even” to the most general words, but I would say further that the more general the words, the harder it is… [read post]
29 Jul 2013, 10:00 am
Clarke's one signed slavery law opinion, State v. [read post]
8 Apr 2011, 9:02 am
Michel V. [read post]
17 Jun 2019, 4:51 pm
Craigievar Castle is owed by the defendant, the National Trust for Scotland (“the Trust”), it having been gifted to the Trust by Lord Sempill. [read post]
