Search for: "Nichols v. English"
Results 61 - 75
of 75
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Oct 2010, 7:17 am
In particular, the explanation at [4] of the way in which the rights protected by Articles 8 and 10 have been absorbed into the long-established action for breach of confidence was approved by Lord Nicholls in Campbell v. [read post]
29 Sep 2010, 11:15 pm
J M v. [read post]
23 Aug 2010, 3:35 am
In 1086 a black African dynasty originating from this area known as Al-Murabitun (Almoravids in English) provided military support and temporarily halted the expanse of the Christians. [read post]
24 Jul 2010, 10:04 am
As far as we are aware, this is the first example of a purely “private” intervention in a private law case in the English courts. [read post]
17 Jul 2010, 2:11 am
’ ([2001] 2 AC 127, at 206 per Lord Nicholls). [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 2:00 am
Ornella Saibene, Robert Nicholls, Thomas Woodhead, Christopher ? [read post]
7 Jul 2010, 5:30 am
This approach directly contradicts the understanding set out by Lords Nicholls and Hobhouse in Reynolds to the effect that the defence applies only to erroneous statements of fact. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 9:54 am
It lists, as Lord Nicholls did in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd (1999), factors to be taken into account by the court when deciding whether a defendant has acted responsibly, but as several cases in the lower courts have shown, judges may be encouraged to view these as tripwires for defendants. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 1:13 am
Reputation, as Lord Nicholls explained in Reynolds v Times Newspapers, does matter, and not merely for its service to the individual concerned: ‘Reputation is an integral and important part of the dignity of the individual. [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 1:30 am
In Flux v. [read post]
25 Nov 2009, 3:00 am
(IP finance) Australia Trade mark use: We need a more balanced solution – FCA decision in Alcon v Bausch & Lomb (Australian Trade Marks Law Blog) FCA on trade marks as security for costs: Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Lodestar Anstalt (ipwars) Minister for Innovation decides not to change regulatory regime for books – publishers keep territorial exclusivity (LawFont) (Managing Intellectual Property) Non-English language publications may not… [read post]
20 Apr 2009, 3:27 am
Department of Veterans Affairs (Retaliation)Cavalier v. [read post]
8 Oct 2008, 10:13 am
While Aerotel placed a large wedge between the EPO Board of Appeals and English courts, recent cases have been bridging the gap, particularly in the area of obviousness in non-software cases (namely, Conor v Angiotech and Actavis v Merck). [read post]
15 Jul 2007, 5:57 am
Nichols does not say. [read post]
11 Mar 2007, 7:58 am
Nichols, supra. [read post]
