Search for: "Word v. Lord"
Results 621 - 640
of 2,058
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 May 2020, 10:29 am
People v. [read post]
30 Oct 2011, 2:42 pm
In this context, we should do well to remember the caution sounded by Lord Scarman in Quazi v. [read post]
20 Dec 2023, 10:53 am
by Dennis Crouch Thaler v. [read post]
4 Dec 2023, 7:41 am
The scope of the rules on concealed fraud were reviewed in the Report of the Law Revision Committee of 1934, following which the Limitation Act 1939 (“LA 1939”), s 26 introduced express wording on the “postponement of limitation period in case of fraud or mistake”. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 9:41 am
In his reference, the Judge trotted through the English court's and CJEU's case law Article 3(a) - Takeda, Farmitalia, Daiichi, Yeda, Medeva (and its progeny), Actavis v Sanofi, Eli Lilly v HGS, Actavis v Boehringer, - and found that it was clear that something more was required, but what that "something" was was not clear. [read post]
31 Jan 2014, 2:56 am
Tugendhat J first referred back to Campbell v MGN [2004] 2 WLR 1232 where Lord Nicholls established that breach of confidence was better encapsulated by another concept, that of misuse of private information, and commented that the tort, however labelled, “affords respect for one aspect of an individual’s privacy”. [read post]
6 Apr 2010, 5:18 am
Dame Janet Smith, in wording subsequently wholly endorsed by Lord Hutton, stated: “… in my view Article 10(1) does not bear upon the right of access to information that another holds but has not made accessible and does not wish to impart… The first sentence states the principle: ‘Everyone has the right of freedom of expression’. [read post]
2 Mar 2008, 3:46 am
Four years later, however, the Lords revisited the principles established by Fairchild in the case of Barker v. [read post]
28 Feb 2008, 12:44 pm
In the only judgment, Lord Justice Dyson rejects the need for an explicit reference to s.71(1), or required form of words, instead following R (on the application of Lisa Smith) v South Norfolk Council [2006] EWHC 2772 (Admin). [read post]
28 May 2024, 11:38 am
The Media Bill has been passed by the House of Lords as one of the outstanding pieces of legislation rushed through Parliament following Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s decision to call a general election on 4 July 2024. [read post]
8 Jul 2015, 8:09 am
There's definitely something wrong ...The IPKat has reported already twice on the interesting Court of Appeal, England and Wales, decision in Smith & Nephew Plc v ConvaTec Technologies Inc, relating to ConvaTec's patent EP (UK) 1,343,510 relating to silverised wound dressings (see Jeremy here, and this Kat here). [read post]
11 May 2009, 3:58 am
In Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha of Trinidad and Tobago Inc. v. [read post]
10 Feb 2021, 4:47 pm
Lord Wilson dissented on both points. [read post]
11 Oct 2007, 3:17 am
It is time to reconsider whether we should revert to the previous wording of “knowing assistance” in a breach of trust or fiduciary duty that was in use before Brunei Airlines v Tan. [read post]
5 Feb 2020, 2:30 am
Lord Carnwath gave the sole judgment, with which the other Justices agree. [read post]
6 Jul 2016, 2:13 am
Lord Kerr gave the only judgment. [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 7:45 am
In his view, which was persuasively and trenchantly expressed, the case had effectively been retried by the Court of Appeal, which was a no-no as the House of Lords had clearly said in two earlier IP cases, Biogen Inc v. [read post]
21 May 2017, 2:42 pm
There was, inevitably, reliance on Lord Neuberger’s ‘warning in Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond upon Thames London Borough Council [2009] UKHL 7; [2009] 1 WLR 413, paras 46 & 50 that: “47. [read post]
27 Nov 2011, 11:13 am
In Howard-Jones v Tate, the UK Court of Appeal has vehemently answered this question in the negative, reasserting the distinction between rescission and repudiatory breach forcefully laid down by Lord Wilberforce in Johnson v Agnew. [read post]
8 Jan 2014, 4:17 pm
Clause 4 is a ‘reasonable publication’ defence not a ‘responsible publication’ defence reflecting the latest common law as outlined by Lord Brown in Flood v Times. [read post]
