Search for: "State v. Lord"
Results 61 - 80
of 3,588
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 May 2011, 5:39 am
In the first part of this series, we considered how the ECHR has expanded the scope of article 8 rights, beyond the “new strength and breadth” which Lord Woolf had predicted in 2002 (in A v B) that the mis-named action for “disclosure of confidential information which would infringe privacy” would have. [read post]
31 Oct 2017, 10:46 am
In July 2017, the Supreme Court (sitting in a panel comprising Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hughes) heard this appeal relating to whether, in the context of awarding Jobseeker’s Allowance (‘JSA’), the State unjustifiably interfered with the right of transgender persons to have information about their gender reassignment kept private. [read post]
24 Oct 2010, 5:18 am
The hearing of the appeal by the Home Secretary in the Article 3 deportation case of MA (Somalia) began in the Supreme Court today before Lords Phillips and Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Mance and Sir John Dyson SCJ. [read post]
Case Comment: Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60 Part Two
13 Mar 2017, 2:42 am
The majority drew upon the case law of the ECtHR (Rodriguez Da Silva, Hoogkamer v Netherlands and Jeunesse v Netherlands). [read post]
4 Nov 2014, 3:40 am
” Lord Neuberger also raised the question of whether anonymous speech is even capable of protection in the Internet age, and remarked on Mr Justice Eady’s conclusions in Author of a Blog v Times Newspapers Ltd [2009] EWHC 1358 (QB), that bogging is a public activity with no reasonable expectation of privacy. [read post]
15 Dec 2011, 6:41 am
It is of course open to member states to provide for rights more generous than those guaranteed by the Convention, but such provision should not be the product of interpretation of the Convention by national courts, since the meaning of the Convention should be uniform throughout the states party to it. [read post]
26 Jun 2014, 1:32 am
Background Last week the Supreme Court handed down judgment in R (T) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 35. [read post]
18 Mar 2015, 9:57 am
The unchallenged findings in fact of the Lord Ordinary stated that the pursuer either did not look to her left at all or failed to identify and react sensibly to the presence of the defender’s car. [read post]
14 May 2016, 1:01 am
On this day in history, Lord Mansfield of the King’s Bench in England issued a ruling in the case of Somerset v. [read post]
23 May 2011, 8:44 am
This was the riddle that recently occupied a nine-judge panel of the Supreme Court in R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] UKSC 18. [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 4:27 am
As neither of the third parties had dealt with the Secretary of State, the claim could only succeed if the court said that the dealing requirement did not form part of the ratio of OBG or departed from that case (which, incidentally, was one of three cases dealt with together by the House of Lords, one of the others being better-known to IP lawyers: Douglas v Hello!). [read post]
28 Nov 2018, 2:13 am
The Court held that they should depart from the decision in R (Clift) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 1 AC 484. [read post]
22 Jan 2019, 8:44 am
Up until this case, that position had support in domestic law (see AL (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 42, [2008] 4 All ER 1127; R (Hooper) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 29, [2006] 1 All ER 487; and R (S) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [2004] UKHL 39, [2004] 4 All ER 193). [read post]
1 Dec 2006, 6:14 am
Here is the abstract: In 1992, the Law Lords (the judicial arm of the House of Lords) overruled more than two centuries of precedent when it decided in Pepper v. [read post]
16 Mar 2015, 8:35 am
In fact Lord Kerr did not as such reject the Secretary of State’s assessment of the risks to national security. [read post]
4 Feb 2009, 10:37 am
Not for the first time, Nearly Legal has drawn my attention to the case of Holmes-Moorhouse v LB Richmond upon Thames, this time as it reaches the House of Lords. [read post]
11 Oct 2022, 1:01 am
The Lord Advocate states he has this in writing which can be provided to the Court (along with any further relevant background info). [read post]
25 Nov 2021, 6:00 am
So I think on this I would adopt the words of Chief Justice Holt, in the great case of Coggs v Barnard in 1703, when he said: “I have stirred these points, which wiser heads in time may settle. [read post]
29 Mar 2008, 5:28 pm
Simpson v. [read post]
27 Oct 2018, 7:52 am
Yet since Lord Hain chose to breach the court injunction issued by the Court of Appeal in ABC v Telegraph Group plc by hiding behind Parliamentary privilege, this is exactly what the public does not get to do. [read post]
