Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 901 - 920
of 3,587
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Feb 2010, 4:07 pm
Lord Hope's main judgment, with which Lady Hale and Lord Brown agreed, traced the history of cases before and after Runa Begum. [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 4:07 pm
Lord Hope's main judgment, with which Lady Hale and Lord Brown agreed, traced the history of cases before and after Runa Begum. [read post]
11 Mar 2015, 3:51 am
The court went on to state that the Lord Ordinary had a reasonable evidential basis for finding on an objective analysis that the bank made a legally binding promise in the telephone call of 14 June 2007 to provide development finding. [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 2:55 am
Lord Wilson dismissed it on the basis that information held predominantly for the purposes of journalism was exempt, and that the Balen Report fell under this category of information. [read post]
3 May 2011, 9:00 am
ARTICLE V. [read post]
9 May 2010, 9:50 pm
McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ B1 (29 April 2010) – Read judgment or our previous post Case comment Lord Carey of Clifton, responding to Lord Justice Laws’ observations in MacFarlane, has called this latest dust-up about religion in the courts a “deeply unedifying clash of rights“. [read post]
16 Jun 2016, 2:48 am
In giving the lead judgment for the majority, Lord Neuberger stated the terms in clause 19(2) which outline the stress test to identify if a CDE has occurred, had to be treated as a reference to the new CRD IV Directive requirements instead of only being applicable to the old requirements under CRD I Directive. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 7:53 am
In a lengthy dissenting judgment, Lord Justice Sales disagreed with the application of the defence stating that the difference between his view and that of the majority was that he considered greater weight should be given to the rights of the trade mark owner and the protection of the interests of the relevant public. [read post]
2 Dec 2018, 4:28 pm
On 29 November 2018 the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, David Gauke, issued a statement, “Controlling the costs of defamation cases”. [read post]
4 Apr 2016, 4:00 am
Supreme Court decision Lord Hodge, with whom Lord Neuberger, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hughes agreed, gave the judgment of the court. [read post]
17 May 2016, 8:19 am
” [11] The Court unanimously rejected the MoJ’s appeal, Lord Reed giving the judgment. [read post]
15 May 2014, 11:40 am
On the principle of the matter, he stated at 111:In my judgment this reasoning [from Rohm & Haas] is persuasive, and it is supported by the subsequent judgment of the Court of Appeal in Virgin v Premium. [read post]
29 Apr 2021, 4:33 am
Google reviewed the relevant case law on CPR 19.6(1), arguing that the authorities (in particular, Emerald Supplies Ltd v British Airways plc [2011] Ch 345 and Rendlesham Estates plc. v Barr Ltd [2015] 1 WLR 3663) supported its position. [read post]
19 Feb 2020, 2:28 am
Lord Lloyd Jones and Lord Sales gave the judgment, with which all members of the Court agreed. [read post]
15 Jun 2017, 1:55 am
Image: Flickr.com R (Kiarie) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (Byndloss) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 42 In a nutshell The Government’s flagship scheme to deport foreign criminals first and hear their appeals later was ruled by the Supreme Court to be incompatible with the appellants’ right to respect for their private and family life (reversing the decision below). [read post]
6 Jan 2015, 10:44 am
The Appellants assert that the House of Lords decision in Stone and Rolls Ltd v Moore Stephens [1] (in which the liquidators of Stone and Rolls were unable to pursue a claim against the company’s auditors for failure to detect a fraud perpetrated by Stone and Rolls’ sole director and shareholder) applies to the facts in this case thereby preventing Bilta (itself now in liquidation) from making any claim. [read post]
17 Dec 2014, 8:59 am
” Kerr v. [read post]
3 Aug 2010, 10:04 pm
Ultimately, as Lord Hoffmann states in R-v-Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115, 131, Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights (provided it squarely confronts what it is doing). [read post]
30 Nov 2020, 1:00 am
The proposed panel for hand-down is Lord Kerr, Lord Briggs, Lord Sales, Lord Leggatt, and Lord Thomas. [read post]
29 Jun 2018, 7:57 am
Lord Hodge (on behalf of Lady Hale, Lord Hughes and Lord Lloyd-Jones) delivered the majority view, with only Lord Briggs dissenting. [read post]
