Search for: "People v Lord"
Results 81 - 100
of 1,802
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 May 2023, 9:18 pm
In my previous post I already said that this case--the biggest and highest-profile one in the history of the UK and one of the most important antitrust cases the world has ever seen--could further delay the Optis Wireless v. [read post]
30 May 2023, 5:55 am
The case also showed that the courts are willing to award significant damages to people who have had their privacy invaded. [read post]
23 May 2023, 12:58 am
The draft Public Order Act 1986 (Serious Disruption to Life in the Community Regulations 2023, if they come into effect, will allow police in England and Wales to impose restrictions on protests and processions that cause “more than minor” hindrance to day-to-day activities for other people. [read post]
21 May 2023, 12:28 pm
A chaotic or open border makes it impossible to screen out people who really do very urgently need to be screened out. [read post]
10 May 2023, 4:00 am
People with access to high-quality information will get ahead. [read post]
8 May 2023, 12:28 pm
As the House of Lords made clear in Ahmad, s.166A(3) only requires that the people encompassed within that section are given “reasonable preference”; it “does not require that they should be given absolute priority over everyone else” ([18]). [read post]
2 May 2023, 12:30 am
The focus of this post, however, is the legislation on the disposal of altars and fonts; in the instant case, the Chancellor stated: “Since the altar will have been dedicated to its sacramental role in the celebration of the Eucharist, or Lord’s Supper, it should not be profaned by any secular use which might result from its sale or disposal for any non-liturgical purpose. [read post]
16 Apr 2023, 10:29 am
The approach in law is that set out by Lord Steyn in Re S and in respect of the requirement for ‘compelling reasons’ the judgment in A v Ward must be regarded as per incuriam and should not be followed. [read post]
14 Apr 2023, 4:41 pm
” A Lord Chamberlain for the internet? [read post]
14 Apr 2023, 1:50 am
(Fourth issue) The Supreme Court’s judgment Lord Reed, Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lord Kitchin, with whom Lord Hodge agreed, gave the majority judgment, with Lord Carnwath dissenting in part. [read post]
12 Apr 2023, 7:35 am
” A Lord Chamberlain for the internet? [read post]
10 Apr 2023, 7:50 am
Help the beloved Ukrainian people on their journey towards peace, and shed the light of Easter upon the people of Russia. [read post]
3 Apr 2023, 4:11 am
“People v Donald ….mmm, hang on, how is that pronounced? [read post]
24 Mar 2023, 3:00 pm
Robert Loeb provided a synopsis of Bahlul v. [read post]
19 Mar 2023, 9:01 pm
It follows the May 2021 ruling of the District Court of The Hague in Milieudefensie et al. v. [read post]
19 Mar 2023, 12:56 pm
As famously expressed by Knight Bruce V-C in Walter v Selfe (1851) 4 De G & Sm 315, 322, the question is whether the interference ought to be considered a material inconvenience “not merely according to elegant or dainty modes and habits of living, but according to plain and sober and simple notions among the English people”; see also Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd (2013) QB 455, para 36(ii). [read post]
3 Mar 2023, 9:25 pm
Lord knows I better. [read post]
27 Feb 2023, 9:47 am
The former party leaders argued that the change would modernise government records, making it easier and more secure for people to access public services. [read post]
2 Feb 2023, 2:49 am
The Supreme Court held that this practice was not unfavourable to disabled people, because it only applies to disabled people, therefore no comparison could be made with non-disabled people. [read post]
1 Feb 2023, 2:23 am
Lord Leggatt, with whom Lord Reed and Lord Lloyd-Jones agree, gave the majority judgment. [read post]
