Search for: "London v. State"
Results 841 - 860
of 3,587
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jul 2014, 4:00 am
V. [read post]
26 Jun 2022, 10:49 am
R(Cort) v London Borough of Lambeth (2022) EWHC 1085 (Admin) While in some ways this is a decision on an historic context (hopefully), there is a lot in this judgment on local authority approaches to housing in a public health emergency to consider. [read post]
4 May 2019, 12:39 pm
See Hay v. [read post]
28 Oct 2010, 12:00 am
In Kelo v. [read post]
18 Nov 2016, 3:47 am
The substantial truth of this allegation was not affected by the BBC having inaccurately stated that the claimant made such a statement at East London Mosque. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 10:27 am
In particular, because of the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
21 Dec 2011, 4:22 am
Mr Terluk said he was from Kazakhstan and that he was seeking asylum in London. [read post]
7 Feb 2022, 4:09 pm
Where a state breaches the ECHR, a Court set up by signatory members – the European Court of Human Rights (which has nothing to do with the European Union) – can order a state to pay an aggrieved citizen compensation. [read post]
12 Nov 2020, 6:48 am
C v D [2007] EWCA Civ 1282). [read post]
28 Jun 2022, 10:17 am
It was a very significant case concerning allegations of genocide by one state against another. [read post]
12 May 2010, 10:21 am
Ahmed & Ors v Murphy [2010] EWHC 453 (Admin) This was an appeal to the High Court of a decision by the London Rent Assessment Committee (LRAC) that the maximum fair rent payable by Mr Murphy for the flat in Brick Lane, Spitalfields was £8.50 per week. [read post]
12 May 2010, 10:21 am
Ahmed & Ors v Murphy [2010] EWHC 453 (Admin) This was an appeal to the High Court of a decision by the London Rent Assessment Committee (LRAC) that the maximum fair rent payable by Mr Murphy for the flat in Brick Lane, Spitalfields was £8.50 per week. [read post]
23 Apr 2018, 4:26 am
The first is Lucia v. [read post]
26 Oct 2011, 5:09 am
In balancing these two rights, Tugendhat J had in mind the “ultimate balancing test” as referred to by Lord Steyn Re S (A Child) [2005] 1 AC 593 (at para 17) and guidance from Lord Bingham in R v Shayler [2003] 1 AC 247 (at para 26) that interference of the ECHR right must not be stricter than necessary to achieve the state’s legitimate aim. [read post]
21 Jul 2014, 1:37 am
R (SG & Ors) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions,heard 29-30 April. [read post]
6 Nov 2011, 7:50 am
If that were the intention, one would have expected it to have been stated expressly. [read post]
6 Nov 2011, 7:50 am
If that were the intention, one would have expected it to have been stated expressly. [read post]
11 May 2012, 2:19 am
But not everything a politician says is political (see Livingstone v Adjudication Panel for England [2006] EWHC 2533 (Admin) [36] where it was judged that the then-London mayor Ken Livingstone’s comments were not expressing political opinion, but were instead to be seen as simply as the offensive abuse of a journalist). [read post]
8 Mar 2012, 9:34 am
See Narducci v. [read post]
