Search for: "AC v. State"
Results 661 - 680
of 1,883
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Nov 2019, 2:45 am
A three-fold test for “material considerations” is found in Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578 (“Newbury”). [read post]
30 Jul 2008, 9:55 pm
(Both Jan Luba QC for Doherty and Philip Sales QC for the Secretary of State challenged this point and it was not uniformly accepted - see below). [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 3:54 am
Comment This case is significant for two reasons: First, it tasks the Supreme Court with answering the question raised obiter by Lady Hale in Savage v South Essex NHS Trust [2009] 1 AC 653, namely “what is the extent of the state’s duty to protect all people against an immediate risk of self-harm? [read post]
11 Aug 2015, 2:00 am
In contrast, Lord Kerr’s dissenting judgment adopts a far more structured approach to proportionality, closely analysing the four questions identified by Lord Reed in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2014] AC 700, with particular emphasis on the rational connection between the interference and the legislative objective and the “least intrusive means” test [21]. [read post]
20 May 2017, 2:40 am
In People v. [read post]
18 Oct 2015, 9:32 am
As Lord Hoffmann said in the Privy Council libel case of Gleaner v Abrahams ([2004] 1 AC 628) “Personal injury awards are almost always made in actions based on negligence or breach of statutory duty rather than intentional wrongdoing. [read post]
13 Dec 2021, 12:18 pm
However, caselaw confirms that welfare is still ‘a primary consideration’ (ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] 2 AC 166, [2011] UKSC 4), so it’s going to be a pretty important factor in any consideration of publication, and in many cases it will be determinative. [read post]
21 Nov 2022, 9:22 am
Ace Am. [read post]
29 Aug 2023, 6:47 am
Humphrey 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]
20 Apr 2017, 4:10 pm
Popplewell J, referring to Lord Keith’s dictum in Attorney-General v Observer Ltd [1990] 1 AC 109 (the “Spycatcher” case), decided it was not necessary for the disclosure to cause detriment to BHAM. [read post]
18 Nov 2008, 9:34 am
Lucian's lawyer (Michael Barry, who shared a panel with me at ACS this summer) argued that "Section 14a-8 provides the minimum of what has to go in a proxy statement, not the maximum. [read post]
13 Nov 2023, 4:57 pm
The natural and ordinary meaning Citing Lord Bridge in Charleston v News Group Newspapers [1995] 2 AC 65, Master Bell emphasised that in order to determine the natural and ordinary meaning of the words of which a plaintiff complains, one must consider the context in which the words were used and the mode of publication [8]. [read post]
8 Dec 2017, 6:37 am
Our Federal Court recently granted an injunction in Bell Canada v. 1326030 Ontario Inc. [read post]
17 Sep 2019, 1:26 am
However in so far as they seek to declare it “null” and of “no effect” he submits that they went too far and where they cannot go. 14:16: Lord Keen QC notes that this principle is consistent with extensive authority and which Sir James Eadie QC will address in due course in further detail. 14:14: Lord Keen QC notes that the Inner House accepted that the principle of non-justiciability exists in public law and that the question of whether something is… [read post]
8 Nov 2011, 11:32 am
Then, following Lord Reid in Wickman v Schuler [1974] AC 235, the Court “is entitled to prefer the construction which is more consistent with business common sense” – even if this means an element of judicial creativity, which Patten LJ in the Court of Appeal felt unable to do. [read post]
12 Nov 2020, 6:11 pm
The decision arose on an application to stay or dismiss the enforcement proceeding at the jurisdictional stage. [2] Altimo Holdings and Investment Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd [2011] UKPC 7, [2012] 1 WLR 1804. [3] The judge noted that the House of Lords had rejected the argument that it should not recognize the courts of the German Democratic Republic (Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 853), and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was not… [read post]
29 Oct 2018, 4:04 am
In Henry Schein, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Jul 2011, 4:28 pm
" He continued, “We saw the same conclusion reached in Perry v. [read post]
7 Apr 2016, 4:20 pm
See State v. [read post]
