Search for: "AC v. State"
Results 861 - 880
of 1,882
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Oct 2014, 4:30 am
In Centeno v. [read post]
7 Oct 2014, 1:04 pm
For a thorough discussion of the early procedural history and some of the novel issues the case raised, see Stephen Vladeck’s excellent 2010 ACS issue brief. [read post]
6 Oct 2014, 4:55 pm
The proposed tort bears close comparison to the UK’s misuse of private information action, developed from Campbell v MGN ([2004] AC 457). [read post]
2 Oct 2014, 5:07 pm
Among the examples to come before the courts in recent years have been repeated offensive publications in a newspaper (as in Thomas); victimisation in the workplace (Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust[2007] 1 AC 224 ); and campaigns against the employees of an arms manufacturer by political protesters:EDO Technology Ltd v Campaign to Smash EDO[2005] EWHC 2490 (QB). [read post]
2 Oct 2014, 2:48 am
[1] R (Barclay) v Secretary of State for Justice & Ors [2009] UKSC 9 [2] R (Barclay & Anor) v Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, The Committee for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey and Her Ma [read post]
26 Sep 2014, 9:50 am
Ac. [read post]
23 Sep 2014, 8:46 am
Ac. [read post]
22 Sep 2014, 9:00 am
The House further considered the case of Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232 which found that the court has to be satisfied that the body of medical opinion relied upon has a logical basis. [read post]
16 Sep 2014, 1:36 pm
In Meyer v. [read post]
8 Sep 2014, 1:26 pm
Alternative Loan Trust v. [read post]
1 Sep 2014, 12:49 am
See paragraph 13(a) of my decision in RJ v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2012] AACR 28. [read post]
25 Aug 2014, 9:35 am
Pritchard v. [read post]
20 Aug 2014, 4:28 am
In Lin v. [read post]
19 Aug 2014, 2:09 pm
See Apotex, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Aug 2014, 8:56 am
Apotex, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Aug 2014, 3:44 am
Interestingly, the Court of Appeal stated that it was not relevant that AC had been exposed to asbestos whilst working for other employers; this did not affect the fact of IEG’s contractual right to be indemnified under Zurich’s policy (as worded). [read post]
7 Aug 2014, 4:59 am
It is often remarked that there is a big difference in the level of originality required in the US and UK for copyright protection, and while some commentators have noticed a shift towards US standards, the level of originality has remained roughly the same since Walter v Lane [1900] AC 539, which was found to be good law in Express Newspapers v News (UK) [1990] 1 WLR 1320. [read post]
7 Aug 2014, 4:59 am
It is often remarked that there is a big difference in the level of originality required in the US and UK for copyright protection, and while some commentators have noticed a shift towards US standards, the level of originality has remained roughly the same since Walter v Lane [1900] AC 539, which was found to be good law in Express Newspapers v News (UK) [1990] 1 WLR 1320. [read post]
7 Aug 2014, 2:33 am
Williams v. [read post]
5 Aug 2014, 10:14 am
Court of Appeal The Court of Appeal (Arden, Black, Briggs LJJ) dismissed the appeal, finding that the approach to proportionality under the Equality Act 2010 was the same as that under Article 8 in Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2011] 2 AC 104 and Hounslow London Borough Council v Powell [2011] 2 AC 186: 27 In my judgment, the approach to proportionality under Article 8 in Pinnock and Powell is in fact the same approach as… [read post]
