Search for: "Word v. Lord"
Results 721 - 740
of 2,058
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 May 2022, 1:51 pm
Regardless of the outcome, Vardy v Rooney illustrates the extent to which social media has become a liability landmine. [read post]
16 Jan 2024, 6:04 am
On 8 January 2024, the High Court of Northern Ireland handed down judgment in the case of Kelly v O’Doherty [2024] NIMaster 1 [pdf]. [read post]
3 Sep 2008, 2:52 pm
Lord, Williston on Contracts § 4:19 (4th ed. 2008). [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 12:12 am
Tugendhat J concluded that this was not a hard and fast rule: It does seem clear that the House of Lords [in Derbyshire] was contemplating that the right to sue of any individual who carried on the day to day management of the affairs of a governmental body was subject to no limitation other than the requirement that the words complained of should refer to, and be defamatory of, that individual. [read post]
5 Oct 2011, 12:46 pm
The Supreme Court heard oral argument this morning in Golan v. [read post]
19 Nov 2013, 9:48 am
Here, last week, Lords Justices Patten and Pitchford LJ, together with Sir John Mummery, had no difficulty in upholding the ruling of Mr Justice Arnold, almost exactly one year earlier, that Starbucks' figurativeCommunity trade mark for the word NOW (illustrated, right) was invalid and that Sky's use of its trade mark (below, left) would not only have not infringed it if it had been valid but would not in any case have constituted an act of passing off. [read post]
24 Jun 2016, 5:30 am
“Lhamon said so” is not the word of the lord, as should be clear to anyone paying attention with a smattering of legal acumen. [read post]
25 Feb 2022, 1:30 am
Quoting from both Lord Arbinger v Ashton [(1873) LR Eq 358 at 374] and Schneider NO and Others v AA and Another [2010 (5) SA 203 (WCC) at 211], the court re-iterated the position that, whilst there is no doubt some natural leaning on the part of an expert towards their paymasters, this does not in any way absolve the expert of the duty of impartiality and integrity. [read post]
19 Feb 2022, 10:55 am
R(N) v Lewisham London Borough Council (2015) AC 1259, confirms this change of stance in that Lord Hodge, with whom the majority of the Supreme Court agreed, approved the lesser connotation of the word “residence” as opposed to “dwelling” which suggested a greater degree of settled occupation. [read post]
23 Dec 2015, 7:24 pm
This test was supported in Conor where Lord Hoffmann held that the objection of lack of plausibility applies to speculative patents, whose breadth of claim meant that the alleged invention is inherently improbable. [read post]
21 Dec 2006, 4:01 pm
First, neither IPKat bloggie Jeremy [Phillips] nor the Lord Chief Justice [Lord Phillips, left - who presided over this decision], is related to the doubly unsuccessful claimant in this case. [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 3:23 pm
In a dramatically divided but decisively 6-3 decision in Kirtsaeng v. [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 3:23 pm
In a dramatically divided but decisively 6-3 decision in Kirtsaeng v. [read post]
11 Jan 2016, 7:30 am
The Justices considered two previous judgments in which it/the House of Lords has held suspicionless stop and search powers to comply with article 8 (R (Gillan) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2006] UKHL 12; Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions [2015] UKSC 49) and the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) decision in Gillan v UK (2010) application no. 4158/05, in which it held that the suspicionless search power under section 44 of the… [read post]
25 May 2023, 9:30 pm
In Guido’s words, “We really did not belong to anyone” (OI, v.1, 101). [read post]
3 Jul 2012, 2:11 am
Lord Phillips queries whether, on the facts, there is sufficient control. [read post]
9 Mar 2022, 2:51 am
Lord Briggs nevertheless went on to decide the second issue. [read post]
25 Sep 2016, 3:41 pm
S Butt v London Borough of Hackney. [read post]
8 Aug 2023, 1:00 am
Accordingly, as recently summarised by Lord Justice Arnold, the three key considerations for claim interpretation in the UK are 1) the wording of the claim, 2) the context provided by the specification and 3) the inventor’s purpose (InterDigital v Lenovo [2023] EWCA Civ 105). [read post]
31 Oct 2016, 8:35 am
Lord Kerr noted in particular the procedural arrangements as set out in the Act and the suggestion that service may be postal. [read post]
