Search for: "V D"
Results 901 - 920
of 76,322
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Apr 2012, 2:45 am
Regina v Burke (Michael) [2012] EWCA Crim 770; [2012] WLR (D) 119 “Where a defendant had been charged with an offence of voyeurism but had been found to be under a disability so that he was unfit to plead or to stand trial, the ingredients of ‘the act…charged against him as the offence’, for the purposes of section 4A(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, included a requirement to prove that his act had been for the purpose of sexual… [read post]
16 Nov 2010, 2:04 am
Regina v Inglis [2010] EWCA Crim 2637; [2010] WLR (D) 289 “When determining the minimum specified term to be served by an individual who genuinely believed that the murder she had committed constituted an act of mercy, the facts that there had been a significant degree of planning or premeditation, that the victim had been particularly vulnerable because of disability and that there had been abuse of a position of trust should not be taken to be aggravating factors. [read post]
22 Mar 2010, 3:49 am
Baxter v Mannion [2010] EWHC 573 (Ch); [2010] WLR (D) 82 “There was no good reason to confine the jurisdiction of the registrar under para 5(a) of Sch 4 to the Land Registration Act 2002 to the correction of procedural mistakes. [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 3:41 am
Regina v Grout [2011] EWCA Crim 299; [2011] WLR (D) 70 “Care had to be taken when drafting a count in an indictment alleging an offence contrary to section 8(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 because that section created at least two separate offences: (i) causing a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity and (ii) inciting a child under 13 to engage in a sexual activity. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 2:30 am
Regina v W [2010] EWCA Crim 372; [2010] WLR (D) 61 “Where the crime of misconduct in a public office was committed in circumstances involving the acquisition of property by theft or fraud, particularly when the holder of a public office was alleged to have made improper claims for public funds in circumstances which were said to be criminal, proof that the defendant was dishonest was an essential ingredient of the offence. [read post]
7 May 2010, 2:17 am
Regina v Y (A) [2010] EWCA Crim 762; [2010] WLR (D) 112 “Where a person possessed information likely to be useful to a terrorist within the meaning of s 58(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000, the fact that the possession was for the purpose of lawful self-defence which was solely defensive was capable of amounting to the statutory defence of reasonable excuse under s 58(3) of the 2000 Act, to an offence of possession under s 58(1). [read post]
20 May 2011, 2:17 am
Regina v Dobson [2011] EWCA Crim 1256; [2011] WLR (D) 167 “Where the Court of Appeal was considering, for the purposes of quashing an acquittal, whether there was new and compelling evidence, provided the new evidence was reliable, substantial and appeared to be highly probative it would be compelling for the purposes of section 78 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003: otherwise it would not. [read post]
5 Mar 2010, 2:16 am
Regina v Lancaster [2010] EWCA Crim 370; [2010] WLR (D) 63 “Where a person was charged with an offence of falsifying a document made or required for an accounting purpose, by omitting a material particular from that document, contrary to s 17 of the Theft Act 1968, the omitted particular was to be regarded as material if it had the effect that the document was liable to mislead in a way which was significant, or in a way which mattered. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 1:46 am
Berezovsky v Abramovich [2011] EWCA Civ 153; [2011] WLR (D) 59 “A claimant who applied for permission to amend his particulars of claim by reframing the loss allegedly suffered as a result of the commission of a tort was not seeking to make a new claim involving the addition or substitution of a new cause of action within the meaning of section 35 of the Limitation Act 1980. [read post]
4 Jun 2010, 1:51 am
Regina v Miller [2010] EWCA Crim 1153; [2010] WLR (D) 142 “In criminal proceedings, the circumstances in which one party would be permitted pursuant to s 100(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to ask a witness a question in cross-examination with a view to eliciting an answer implicating that witness in bad behaviour, which behaviour that party would be otherwise unable to prove, were infrequent and limited in scope. [read post]
4 Jun 2010, 1:49 am
Regina v Braithwaite [2010] EWCA Crim 1082; [2010] WLR (D) 141 “Material contained in police crime reports that unproven allegations had been made against a person who was someone other than a defendant, or that that person had been investigated in respect of an offence, would rarely be of substantial probative value to an issue at trial sufficient to render it admissible as evidence of bad character against that person pursuant to s 100(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act… [read post]
13 Mar 2018, 2:20 pm
., Jan. 29, 2018, Hernandez v. [read post]
31 Mar 2011, 2:46 am
Les Laboratoires Servier and another v Apotex Inc and others [2010] EWHC 730 (Pat); [2011] WLR (D) 111 “The court would not award compensation under a cross-undertaking for the loss sustained by an unlawful business or where the beneficiary of the cross-undertaking had to rely to a substantial extent upon his own illegality in order to establish the loss, provided the unlawfulness was sufficiently serious to engage the ex turpi causa rule. [read post]
17 Dec 2010, 3:44 am
DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2010] UKSC 58; [2010] WLR (D) 333 “When interpreting a deeming provision in a taxing statute it was important not to take the hypothesis further than was warranted. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 3:55 am
Gedeon Richter plc v Bayer Schering Pharma AG [2012] EWCA Civ 235; [2012] WLR (D) 66 “On an application for the revocation of a registered patent on the ground of obviousness it was sufficient for the judge hearing the case to take an objective view whether a skilled formulator would take the trouble to obtain copies of papers published by inventors or review their contents to ascertain whether the patent in question related to an invention which was novel. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 3:16 am
BESTrustees plc v Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Ltd [2012] EWHC 629 (Ch); [2012] WLR (D) 84 “Where an insolvency event had occurred in relation to an employer, thereby triggering a calculation of the deficiencies in the assets of a pension fund under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995, the time at which both the value of the pension scheme assets and the cost of the notional acquisition of annuities in the market to match its liabilities should be assessed was the… [read post]
27 Apr 2010, 2:45 am
Winterflood Securities Ltd and others v Financial Services Authority [2010] EWCA Civ 423; [2010] WLR (D) 101 “The definition of market abuse in s 118 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 did not require the person engaging in the behaviour in question to have intended to abuse the market and accordingly it was not essential for such an intention or purposes to be present for behaviour to fall below the objective standards expected. [read post]
9 May 2012, 1:52 am
Les Laboratoires Servier and another v Apotex Inc and others [2012] EWCA Civ 593; [2012] WLR (D) 138 “The court was able to take into account a wide range of considerations in order to ensure that the ex turpi causa defence only applied where it was a just and proportionate response to the illegality in question. [read post]
23 Feb 2010, 2:02 am
Hertfordshire County Council v Veolia Water Central Ltd [2010] EWHC 278 (QB); [2010] WLR (D) 46 “The effect of regs 3 and 4 of the Street Works (Maintenance) Regulations 1992, when read with s 81 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, was that an highway and street authority could not make a valid charge against a statutory undertaker for emergency works which the authority had carried out to secure apparatus for which the undertaker was responsible unless the undertaker… [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 2:56 am
Football Dataco Ltd and others v Sportradar GmbH and another [2011] EWCA Civ 330; [2011] WLR (D) 113 “There was no good arguable case of copyright infringement under article 3 of Directive 96/9/EC such as to establish that the English court had jurisdiction for the purposes of article 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 where, even though the collection of data might involve some intellectual creation, what was alleged to have been copied was mere data on any reasonable… [read post]
