Search for: "Word v. Lord"
Results 81 - 100
of 2,054
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 May 2014, 9:11 am
Torcaso v. [read post]
30 Jul 2008, 9:55 pm
This is a very interesting result indeed, although I use the word result in a non-definite kind of way. [read post]
20 Oct 2010, 10:56 am
Lord Justice Lloyd, with whom the other Lords Justice agreed, found that it did not in light of what was disclosed in the rest of the specification. [read post]
18 Dec 2015, 9:11 am
On the construction issue, the majority (Lord Neuberger, Lord Sumption, Lord Hughes and Lord Hodge) held as follows: the natural meaning of the words used was clear: the first half of clause 3(2) (up to and including the words “hereinafter set out“) stipulated that the lessee was to pay an annual charge to reimburse the lessor for the costs of providing the services, and the second half of the clause identified how that service charge… [read post]
25 Mar 2009, 6:09 pm
Peter is a man of few words and very indirect in conversation. [read post]
12 Mar 2021, 4:48 pm
The wording sought is modest by comparison, and factual in nature. [read post]
19 Mar 2018, 6:46 am
Parliament could achieve a contrary result by using the clearest possible words. [read post]
17 Jul 2010, 2:11 am
’ (Reynolds v Times Newspapers [2001] 2 AC 127, 205) The burden of proving the existence of Reynolds privilege is on the defendant (Ibid, 203) who must show that there was a real public interest in publishing the matter complained, that the inclusion of the words complained of was justifiable, and that in the circumstances publication was made responsibly (See, for example, Lord Neuberger in Flood v Times Newspapers [2010] EWCA Civ 804, at [31]). [read post]
5 Aug 2016, 8:00 am
The Supreme Court heard this appeal on 9-10 March 2015 and handed down judgment, delivered by Lord Neuberger PSC, on 27 January 2016. [read post]
25 Jun 2015, 8:24 pm
With its decision in King v. [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 9:20 pm
This fact alone means that this decision is unlikely to be the last word on the matter. [read post]
5 Nov 2018, 4:05 pm
On Tuesday and Wednesday 13 and 14 November 2018, the Supreme Court (Lords Kerr, Wilson, Sumption, Hodge and Briggs) will hear the appeal in Lachaux (Respondent) v Independent Print Limited and another (Appellants) UKSC 2017/0175, against the Court of Appeal decision of Davis LJ, with whom MacFarlane and Sharp LJJ concurred ([2017] EWCA Civ 1334). [read post]
25 Nov 2010, 4:03 am
Lord Justice Jacob, with whom Mr Justice Kitchin and Lord Justice Longmore noddingly concurred, said "31. [read post]
9 Jun 2022, 9:00 am
We have the following Call for Papers:Somerset v. [read post]
26 Jun 2021, 2:59 am
This is one of the issues in the case Facebook v Voxer [2021] EWHC 1377 (Pat). [read post]
16 Aug 2009, 9:32 am
Moore Stephens v. [read post]
22 Dec 2015, 4:07 am
Lord Clarke gave the leading judgment. [read post]
28 May 2013, 11:10 am
McAlpine v. [read post]
28 May 2013, 11:10 am
McAlpine v. [read post]
3 Aug 2008, 7:32 pm
In Sun-Times Media Group Inc. v. [read post]
