Search for: "Brown v. Unknown" Results 81 - 100 of 289
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Sep 2021, 4:15 am by INFORRM
Summerfield Browne Limited v Phillip James Waymouth [2021] EWHC 85 (QB) This case, which can be read in full here, was the first case in which an order under section 13 was made. [read post]
4 Oct 2015, 4:03 am by INFORRM
 The parties subsequently agreed directions and undertakings pending trial ([2015] EWHC 2374 (QB)) The “corporate body” damages case of Brett Wilson v Persons Unknown [2015] EWHC 2628 (QB). [read post]
11 Jun 2023, 10:59 pm by Michael Douglas
An affidavit in those proceedings recounted that Yin’s whereabouts were then unknown, but Yin had been served according to relevant procedure of the Chinese forum, which allowed service ‘by way of public announcement’: [31]. [read post]
7 Sep 2016, 4:00 am by Administrator
Brown v Cassidy, 2016 ONSC 5446 [80] The doctrine of caveat emptor [ “let the buyer beware” ] applies to residential real estate transactions in Ontario. [read post]
6 Oct 2020, 1:30 am by Neil Wilkof
The court distinguished between relying on the reputation of a reputable and established business, as in the case of Public Prosecutor v Tan Lay Heong and another [1996] SLR(R) 504, where assurances from a reputable department store could be relied on, and the current case, where the supplier was unknown. [read post]
15 Sep 2010, 10:36 am by INFORRM
([2001] QB 967) Campbell v MGN ([2004] 2 AC 457),  McKennitt v Ash ([2008] QB 73),  Lord Browne of Madingley v Associated Newspapers ([2008] 1 QB 103), Murray v Express Newspapers ([2009] Ch 481) – and that Mr Justice Eady was not party to a single one of these decisions (although appeals against his rulings were dismissed in McKennitt and Lord Browne). [read post]
6 Oct 2010, 2:49 pm by INFORRM
The  Court of Appeal decision in McKennitt v Ash was followed shortly afterwards  in the Court of Appeal decision in Lord Browne v Associated Newspapers [2008] QB 103. [read post]
2 Aug 2013, 1:45 pm by Lyle Denniston
  That decision came in Adoptive Couple v. [read post]