Search for: "State v. Lord"
Results 781 - 800
of 3,607
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Apr 2012, 5:13 pm
The Court’s reasoning Silber J considered the case of R (Animal Defenders International) v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport [2008] UKHL 15 and concluded that even though that case is awaiting a ruling from the Grand Chamber in Strasbourg, he was bound by the House of Lords’ ruling that the prohibitions on political advertising contained in sections 319 and 321 of the 2003 Act were justified as being necessary in a democratic society… [read post]
28 Mar 2018, 8:14 am
As the the Court themselves stated:"We are conscious that in so deciding we are arriving at a conclusion which is different from that of an experienced patent judge. [read post]
10 May 2012, 11:15 pm
” Alpert v. [read post]
20 Nov 2020, 1:45 am
Lord Reed and Lord Hodge gave the main judgment, with which Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lord Hamblen agreed. [read post]
20 Oct 2016, 6:09 am
Lord Toulson noted the frequently quoted words of Lord Hoffmann in R v Secretary of State for the Home Office, Ex p Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 that “Fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous words” and said importantly that “while Lord Hoffmann said that this presumption will apply “even” to the most general words, but I would say further that the more general the words, the harder it is likely to be… [read post]
12 May 2016, 2:00 am
Lord Sumption gave the lead judgment. [read post]
1 Mar 2017, 4:57 am
As an example of such adjustment, the court pointed to the judgment of the House of Lords in R v Waya [2012] UKSC 51. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 2:15 am
PP v Secretary of State for the Home Department, (formerly VV [Jordan]), PP v SSHD, W & BB v SSHD and Z, G, U & Y v SSHD, heard 30 – 31 January 2012. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 3:26 am
Patmalniece (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Respondent) [2011] UKSC 11 – Read judgment / press summary The Supreme Court has ruled that pensioners from other European Union states should not have the right to claim pension credits in the UK. [read post]
11 Nov 2010, 4:57 am
It is a conjoined appeal of Universal Estates v Tiensia and Honeysuckle Properties v Fletcher. [read post]
11 Nov 2010, 4:57 am
It is a conjoined appeal of Universal Estates v Tiensia and Honeysuckle Properties v Fletcher. [read post]
24 Jul 2017, 1:00 am
R (HC) v Secretary of State for Works and Pensions & Ors, heard 21-22 Jun 2017. [read post]
27 Nov 2017, 4:04 pm
It is well established that this “view” can exist both before and after publication (Campbell v MGN [2003] QB 633). [read post]
30 Mar 2012, 1:01 am
Presumably those set out by Lord Neuberger in the House of Lords (at [57]) take on greater resonance? [read post]
15 Aug 2017, 11:23 am
United States and Dean Mazzone's article that I linked to yesterday. [read post]
24 Aug 2017, 1:34 am
Further, four members of the House of Lords in OBG Ltd v Allen had emphasized the need to confine the tort within careful limits. [read post]
16 Oct 2019, 5:09 am
Lord Reed and Lord Lloyd-Jones gave the judgment, with whom all members of the Court agreed. [read post]
23 Feb 2025, 5:10 am
” On 17 February, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Ministry of Justice, responded as follows: “The Ministry of Justice has no responsibility for non-therapeutic male circumcision or its regulation. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 6:50 am
Brown v Stott [2003] 1 AC 681, per Lord Steyn). [read post]
23 Oct 2017, 1:00 am
R (HC) v Secretary of State for Works and Pensions & Ors, heard 21-22 Jun 2017. [read post]
