Search for: "Ace v. State"
Results 861 - 880
of 1,884
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Nov 2014, 1:23 pm
The exercise of the discretion to set the qualification criteria could in principle be challenged on Padfield grounds (Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997) but no such case is or could be advanced here. [read post]
28 Oct 2014, 10:31 am
Latimer v. [read post]
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]
