Search for: "Word v. Lord"
Results 61 - 80
of 2,054
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Jul 2023, 4:54 pm
For instance, in the landmark ruling of Fiona Trust and Holding Corp v Privalov (2007), both Lord Hoffman and Lord Hope illustrated that an arbitration clause will not be severable where it is a part of the main contract and the existence of consent to the main contract in itself is under question. [read post]
8 Jul 2023, 6:33 am
In this regard, Biden v. [read post]
7 Jul 2023, 5:11 pm
Our starting place is Entick v. [read post]
5 Jul 2023, 11:46 pm
The Bishop of Exeter, Henry Phillpotts, said in the debate in the House of Lords that the bill was “a disgrace to British legislation. [read post]
3 Jul 2023, 2:53 am
Kagan’s dissent, in other words, is a call for accountability. [read post]
1 Jul 2023, 11:27 pm
”… … and yes, Siri did give definitions which accorded with our understanding of the word. [read post]
28 Jun 2023, 5:34 pm
Cf Bush v. [read post]
24 Jun 2023, 11:12 pm
On 20 June 2023, a further bid to remove the Lord Bishop from the Manx Parliament was thrown out. [read post]
19 Jun 2023, 11:39 am
[Justice Gorsuch v. [read post]
15 Jun 2023, 12:16 am
He cited Lord Fraser in R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex p. [read post]
14 Jun 2023, 3:09 am
Ltd v Babco Forwarding & Shipping (UK) Ltd. [1978] AC 141 (“Buchanan”), the House of Lords decided by a 3:2 majority that the broad interpretation should be adopted. [read post]
10 Jun 2023, 4:02 pm
Darren Smyth (photo: Neil Graveney)The equivalents were a terrible idea, said Darren Smyth commenting on Actavis v Eli Lilly from the UK Supreme Court, which established that an infringed claim could be wider than the claim wording. [read post]
9 Jun 2023, 8:20 am
Goldsmith for copyrights and Amgen Inc. v. [read post]
30 May 2023, 9:18 pm
In my previous post I already said that this case--the biggest and highest-profile one in the history of the UK and one of the most important antitrust cases the world has ever seen--could further delay the Optis Wireless v. [read post]
30 May 2023, 12:04 pm
See Google Inc. v. [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]
23 May 2023, 12:58 am
The changes amend sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 effectively alter the meaning of the threshold criterion of causing “serious disruption to the life of the community” in respect of processions and assemblies by defining that term in a way that imposes a lower threshold than its ordinary words suggest. [read post]
21 May 2023, 12:28 pm
It instead strikes me as quite "ambitious," which is the word Madison used in 1788 when discussing invasions in Federalist 43. [read post]
11 May 2023, 2:21 am
On 4 May 2023, a mere two weeks after the conclusion of the hearing, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Sandoz and Teva v BMS. [read post]
10 May 2023, 4:00 am
Periodically on Thursdays, we present a significant excerpt, usually from a recently published book or journal article. [read post]
