Search for: "V D"
Results 881 - 900
of 76,322
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Aug 2011, 3:49 am
Regina (SL) v Westminster City Council (The Medical Foundation and another intervening) [2011] EWCA Civ 954; [2011] WLR (D) 275 “On the true meaning of section 21(1)(a) of the National Assistance Act 1948, as amended, an asylum seeker suffering from depression and mental health difficulties who had been granted indefinite leave to remain was entitled to residential accommodation if the local authority had provided a programme of assistance and support to him through a care… [read post]
1 May 2012, 3:05 am
Regina (T) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; Regina (R) Same [2012] EWHC 1115 (Admin); [2012] WLR (D) 126 “The decision of the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis to issue and serve warning notices to those who had been accused of harassment or stalking by means of a Prevention of Harassment Letter or a Police Information Notice, and the retention of the documents or the underlying allegations in police records thereafter, could not give rise to any… [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 2:56 am
Auto 24 SARL v Jaguar Land Rover France SAS (Case C-158/11); [2012] WLR (D) 175 “It had to be possible to verify the precise content of ‘specified criteria’ upon which a quantitative selective distribution system in the motor vehicle sector was granted pursuant to article 1(1)(f) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor… [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 2:56 am
Auto 24 SARL v Jaguar Land Rover France SAS (Case C-158/11); [2012] WLR (D) 175 “It had to be possible to verify the precise content of ‘specified criteria’ upon which a quantitative selective distribution system in the motor vehicle sector was granted pursuant to article 1(1)(f) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor… [read post]
25 Feb 2010, 2:56 am
Richard Buxton (a firm) v Mills-Owen (Law Society intervening) [2010] EWCA Civ 122; [2010] WLR (D) 49 “It was wrong to restrict the circumstances in which a solicitor might lawfully terminate his retainer to those in which he was instructed to do something improper. [read post]
23 Apr 2018, 6:32 am
Here are the briefs (so far) in Coeur d’Alene Tribe v. [read post]
11 Feb 2014, 5:43 am
Ryan D. [read post]
24 Nov 2010, 1:34 am
Posted by D. [read post]
24 Nov 2010, 1:34 am
Posted by D. [read post]
9 May 2017, 1:40 pm
(…) People v. [read post]
28 Apr 2023, 8:00 am
# # #DECISIONSouth Shore D'Lites LLC v First Class Prods. [read post]
1 Feb 2011, 1:59 am
Jones v Jones [2011] EWCA Civ 41; [2011] WLR (D) 26 “Even if an earning capacity might also sometimes be relevant to a fair distribution of the assets pursuant to the sharing principle, it did not follow that the earning capacity should itself be treated as one of those assets, still less that an attempt should be made to capitalise it. [read post]
5 Mar 2010, 2:14 am
Regina v NW [2010] EWCA Crim 404; [2010] WLR (D) 62 “The words ‘present together’ in the expression ‘Where three or more persons who are present together’ in s 2(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 denoted no more than that the persons concerned were in the same place at the same time. [read post]
10 May 2010, 2:57 am
Regina v Neish [2010] EWCA Crim 1011; [2010] WLR (D) 116 “The process whereby a judge gave instructions to the court listing office to relist the hearing of confiscation proceedings amounted to a postponement of the proceedings by the court of its own motion and was a valid postponement for the purposes of s 14 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. [read post]
13 Apr 2010, 2:33 am
Vaughan v Vaughan [2010] EWCA Civ 349; [2010] WLR (D) 95 “When a judge was determining (i) a husband’s application to terminate a financial obligation to his former wife and (ii) the former wife’s application to capitalise the obligation, and he was comparing the financial needs of the former wife and a present wife, there remained a presumption that on marriage each spouse took the other subject to all existing encumbrances, whether known or not. [read post]
30 Jul 2010, 2:47 am
Regina v Dunn [2010] EWCA Crim 1823; [2010] WLR (D) 207 “The fact that an appeal from the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division only lay to the Supreme Court if the Court of Appeal certified that a point of law of general public importance was involved in its decision did not amount to a denial of the essence of an appellant’s right of access to the Supreme Court and was not incompatible with articles 6 and 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and… [read post]
23 Aug 2010, 1:57 am
Regina v Hamer [2010] WLR (D) 235 “A fixed penalty notice which had been issued to a defendant pursuant to s 2 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 was not a conviction, admission of guilt, proof that a crime had been committed, or a stain on the defendant’s character, and therefore could not be regarded as evidence which impugned the character of the defendant or admitted as such. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 1:52 am
Joseph v Spiller [2010] UKSC 53; [2010] WLR (D) 310 “The defence in defamation proceedings of fair comment – to be renamed ‘honest comment’ – did not require that the comment had to identify the matters on which it was based with sufficient particularity to enable readers to judge for themselves whether it was well founded. [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 2:20 am
Regina v Rollins [2010] UKSC 39; [2010] WLR (D) 210 “The power of the Financial Services Authority to institute criminal proceedings was not limited to the offences referred to in ss 401 and 402 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000; in particular the FSA had power to prosecute offences of money laundering under ss 327 and 328 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. [read post]
12 Mar 2010, 3:16 am
Noble v Owens [2010] EWCA Civ 224; [2010] WLR (D) 73 ”Where fresh evidence was adduced in the Court of Appeal tending to show that the judge at first instance had been deliberately misled the court would only allow the appeal and order a retrial where the fraud was either admitted or the evidence of it was incontrovertible. [read post]
