Search for: "State v. Borough"
Results 641 - 660
of 1,317
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Jul 2013, 5:09 pm
United States v. [read post]
7 Jul 2013, 12:01 pm
Noting that this was found to be compatible with Art 8 in Hounslow London Borough Council v Powell [2011] UKSC 8, Sir Alan Ward also notes that in Yordanova v Bulgaria (Application No. 25446/06, dated 24th April 2012) [our note] the ECtHR said: “However, Article 8 does not impose on Contracting States an obligation to tolerate unlawful land occupation indefinitely…”.Therefore:I conclude that the court must approach the claim made by a private… [read post]
7 Jul 2013, 12:01 pm
Noting that this was found to be compatible with Art 8 in Hounslow London Borough Council v Powell [2011] UKSC 8, Sir Alan Ward also notes that in Yordanova v Bulgaria (Application No. 25446/06, dated 24th April 2012) [our note] the ECtHR said: “However, Article 8 does not impose on Contracting States an obligation to tolerate unlawful land occupation indefinitely…”.Therefore:I conclude that the court must approach the claim made by a private… [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 6:02 am
Hunt & Ors v Optima (Cambridge) Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 681 (TCC)This is a brief note on what was a complex case arising out of what, by any measure, appears to have been a very poor construction and subsequent maintenance of a new build block of flats. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 6:02 am
Hunt & Ors v Optima (Cambridge) Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 681 (TCC)This is a brief note on what was a complex case arising out of what, by any measure, appears to have been a very poor construction and subsequent maintenance of a new build block of flats. [read post]
15 Jun 2013, 4:31 am
This had been approved in Hanoman v Southwark London Borough Council (No 2) [2009] UKHL 29.The Court of Appeal agreed with R.The 2004 Act has to be construed in the light of the provisions of the 1988 Act as regards assured shorthold tenancies, including section 5. [read post]
15 Jun 2013, 4:31 am
This had been approved in Hanoman v Southwark London Borough Council (No 2) [2009] UKHL 29.The Court of Appeal agreed with R.The 2004 Act has to be construed in the light of the provisions of the 1988 Act as regards assured shorthold tenancies, including section 5. [read post]
27 May 2013, 9:28 am
He states that you take regular medication. [read post]
27 May 2013, 9:28 am
He states that you take regular medication. [read post]
3 Apr 2013, 8:09 am
Catalanello (up for reelection to the Madison Borough Council this fall), but I don't want to get my gracious hosts sued. [read post]
28 Mar 2013, 1:38 am
Such is the state of modern British housing. [read post]
24 Mar 2013, 11:41 am
London Borough of Brent v Tudor [2013] EWCA Civ 157This was an appeal of a Circuit Judge’s finding that LB Brent’s possession claim under Ground 16, Schedule 2 Housing Act 1985 failed because the property was reasonably needed to accommodate those living there. [read post]
24 Mar 2013, 11:41 am
London Borough of Brent v Tudor [2013] EWCA Civ 157This was an appeal of a Circuit Judge’s finding that LB Brent’s possession claim under Ground 16, Schedule 2 Housing Act 1985 failed because the property was reasonably needed to accommodate those living there. [read post]
22 Mar 2013, 11:51 am
United States (common law adoption)* State Courts BulletinCases featured:Williams v. [read post]
21 Mar 2013, 11:59 pm
Writing in the Guardian Patrick Butler pointed out that whereas the recent turnaround which saw families with disabled children being exempted was vaunted as a gesture towards decency and common sense, it was in fact the case that the government had been forced into an embarrassing climb down in the case of Gorry v Wiltshire and the Secretary of State where they fought tooth and nail to not have disabled children exempted. [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 5:48 am
” In Borough of Merchantville v. [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 11:11 pm
The ground 1 claim was on the basis of clause 31 of the post 2009 tenancy agreement, which states:“This is a list of things that you, your lodgers, friends, relatives, visitors and any other person living in the property are not allowed to do whilst in the London Borough of Wandsworth or the area which is local to the property: . breach the tenancy conditions . do anything which causes or is likely to cause a nuisance to anyone living in the borough of Wandsworth… [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 11:11 pm
The ground 1 claim was on the basis of clause 31 of the post 2009 tenancy agreement, which states:“This is a list of things that you, your lodgers, friends, relatives, visitors and any other person living in the property are not allowed to do whilst in the London Borough of Wandsworth or the area which is local to the property: . breach the tenancy conditions . do anything which causes or is likely to cause a nuisance to anyone living in the borough of Wandsworth… [read post]
13 Feb 2013, 1:40 pm
Borough Council of Borough of Oakmont, 600 Pa. 207, 964 A.2d 855, 866 (2009). [read post]
3 Feb 2013, 3:57 pm
Ibrahim v London Borough of Wandsworth [2013] EWCA Civ 20The question for the Court of Appeal in this second appeal from a homeless appeal, was “How should the courts deal with a plainly deficient homelessness decision when the deficiency has had no adverse consequences for the applicant? [read post]
