Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 981 - 1000
of 4,049
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
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]
17 Dec 2014, 8:59 am
” Kerr v. [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]
10 Jan 2010, 7:14 am
Underpinning the decision in this case are two key cases, N v Home Secretary [2005] UKHL 31 and D v United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 423. [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 11:28 pm
And in his detailed consideration of the response of various contracting states to the Salduz decision, Lord Hope notes that a number of states have taken steps to alter their law to bring it into line with the Strasbourg approach. [read post]
17 Feb 2018, 7:30 am
”Henry loved when he was in "shear mode"Claim "Interpretation" - it is all about what you say and disclaimWith the old "Construction" heading now replaced with "Interpretation", Mr Justice Carr stated he would be applying"principles concerning normal interpretation and equivalents set out by the Supreme Court in Actavis v Eli Lilly [2017] UKSC 48, [2018] and by the Patents Court in Mylan v Yeda [2017] EWHC 2629 (Pat)… [read post]
11 Feb 2011, 12:18 am
Lord Saville stated that Blair J had given the phrase inherent vice too wide a meaning, a fortuity which was unexceptional or foreseeable was still a fortuity. [read post]
27 Sep 2020, 4:37 pm
Nor did Lord Malcom, who did not consider it “necessary to dwell” on the current state of the law concerning whether such a right existed. [read post]
22 Mar 2012, 6:47 am
The source stated that the police officer “could be” the claimant and that he had reported this to the police. [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 9:50 am
Q v. [read post]
1 Aug 2016, 2:10 am
The panel will be Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Toulson and Lord Hodge. [read post]
10 May 2011, 9:00 am
ARTICLE V Extradition shall be granted only if the evidence be found sufficient, according to the laws of the place where the person sought shall be found, either to justify his committal for trial if the offense of which he is accused had been committed in that place or to prove that he is the identical person convicted by the courts of the requesting Party. [read post]
10 Nov 2021, 3:29 am
This argument was founded on the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the case of Gulati v MGN, which concerned systematic phone hacking by journalists from the Mirror Group. [read post]
16 Dec 2015, 2:49 am
In delivering the leading judgment Lord Mance stated that the appellant’s argument that the Scottish Ministers had no power under the 1989 Act to grant consent would be dismissed because it was not supported by the structure and language of the 1989 Act. [read post]
7 May 2015, 1:02 pm
See United States v. [read post]
