Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 641 - 660
of 4,035
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
15 Jun 2011, 3:27 am
"Lord Justice Rimer and Lord Justice Elias gave consenting judgments. [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]
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]
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]
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 Jul 2012, 5:10 pm
On 20 July 2012 there will be an application in the case of Lord Ashcroft v Foley. [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]
29 Mar 2007, 5:51 am
Relying on Rowinski v. [read post]
6 Mar 2015, 4:00 am
The complaint (full text) in Gelfuso v. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 4:04 am
R. and H. v. [read post]
31 Oct 2012, 4:39 am
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and another (Appellants) v Yunus Rahmatullah (Respondent) The Supreme Court has ruled that the law of habeas corpus should not be used to order the US to return a Pakistani national held in US custody to the UK. [read post]
31 Jan 2011, 10:00 pm
The Court of Appeal yesterday handed down judgment in the case of JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd ([2011] EWCA Civ 42). [read post]
14 Jun 2007, 2:53 am
Do laws that constrain state agents on state territory also apply abroad? [read post]
2 Jul 2012, 11:57 am
Global Aerospace v. [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]
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]
13 Jul 2017, 8:47 am
The judgment comes as a surprise, as the previously established UK case law had over time firmly done away with the idea of ‘pith and marrow’ infringement, culminating in the seminal House of Lords judgment in Kirin-Amgen v Hoechst Marion Roussel [2004] UKHL 46. [read post]
13 Jul 2017, 8:47 am
The judgment comes as a surprise, as the previously established UK case law had over time firmly done away with the idea of ‘pith and marrow’ infringement, culminating in the seminal House of Lords judgment in Kirin-Amgen v Hoechst Marion Roussel [2004] UKHL 46. [read post]
