Search for: "AC v. State" Results 741 - 760 of 1,881
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Jan 2011, 10:00 pm by Rosalind English
Bank Mellat v HM Treasury [2011] EWCA Civ 1: read judgment. [read post]
23 Sep 2023, 7:54 am by Eugene Volokh
" In practice, it's hard to find cases where such a standard would likely change the outcome; but Thursday's Washington Court of Appeals decision in State v. [read post]
15 Jan 2014, 4:10 pm
On the contrary, Mr Carr QC stated that issue estoppel and abuse of process are “all about justice” and noted the courts’ attempts to restrict the scope of strict action estoppel in cases such as Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 2 AC 93 precisely because it can lead to injustice. [read post]
28 Nov 2014, 3:17 am by Alasdhair McDonald, Olswang LLP
Lord Sumption also rejected the approaches taken at first instance and by the Court of Appeal in holding that the defence of illegality was a rule of law and that previous attempts to introduce a discretionary element into the doctrine had been expressly rejected by the House of Lords in Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340. [read post]
22 Dec 2014, 3:41 am
Private copying levy systems are not harmonised in the EU, and some Member States do not even collect levies or decided to get rid of them altogether. [read post]
6 Feb 2013, 9:20 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Nor is it necessary that Honeywell have directly ac- cused Arkema of potential indirect infringement. [read post]
3 Jun 2009, 11:05 am
This fundamental principle that an expert must testify to a reasonable medical probability was stated in Rowley v. [read post]
2 Nov 2022, 6:07 am by Jocelyn Hutton
Moreover, in Pioneer Aggregates (UK) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1985] AC 132 the House of Lords held that there is no room for any principle of abandonment in planning law. [read post]
1 May 2008, 12:14 pm
Having set out its commonsense goal, the judgment performs some remarkable acrobatics to show that this view is either compatible with, or distinguishable from previous cases: Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [2002] 1 AC 547; Sahardid v Camden LBC [2005] HLR page 11; and in finding support in Robinson v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [2006] 1 WLR 3295. [read post]
21 Jun 2018, 1:53 am by Adeline Chong
On the Mareva injunction, the Singapore High Court adopted the majority approach in the Privy Council decision of Mercedes Benz v Leiduck [1996] 1 AC 284. [read post]
12 Apr 2007, 4:08 pm
I have had a chance to chat with a few reporters about the Supreme Court's upcoming argument in Panetti v. [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 4:37 am by David J. DePaolo
Ace USA, handed down in August.A Connecticut case this week reinforced the concept in Desmond v. [read post]