Search for: "State v. Lord"
Results 1001 - 1020
of 3,608
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Mar 2011, 9:50 am
The Supreme Court, however, felt constricted by the operation of law: Lord Clarke stated that whilst he could see the merits of introducing a public interest exception, “whether and in what circumstances to permit such as exception seems to me to be essentially a matter for Parliament and not for the courts” (see paragraph 49). [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 1:00 am
Had they done so, Her Ladyship stated that she would have agreed with the minority decision in that case. [read post]
19 May 2016, 1:54 am
Lord Toulson, dissenting, would have upheld the discharge of the injunction. [read post]
27 Jun 2010, 10:00 pm
The Secretary of State decided that she was only entitled to a state pension from her 65th birthday. [read post]
26 Oct 2011, 5:09 am
In balancing these two rights, Tugendhat J had in mind the “ultimate balancing test” as referred to by Lord Steyn Re S (A Child) [2005] 1 AC 593 (at para 17) and guidance from Lord Bingham in R v Shayler [2003] 1 AC 247 (at para 26) that interference of the ECHR right must not be stricter than necessary to achieve the state’s legitimate aim. [read post]
7 Jun 2011, 9:00 am
ARTICLE V. [read post]
13 Aug 2013, 9:40 am
Windsor in United States v. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 3:02 pm
Hounslow v Powell; Leeds v Hall; Birmingham v Frisby [2011] UKSC 8 [This is probably a work in progress. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 3:02 pm
Hounslow v Powell; Leeds v Hall; Birmingham v Frisby [2011] UKSC 8 [This is probably a work in progress. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 3:36 pm
At paragraph 173, Lord Justice Kitchin stated that he had "no doubt": "that in some circumstances:the skilled person may reasonably be expected to carry out a literature search in order to implement aspects of the teaching of a specification. [read post]
8 Apr 2011, 1:00 pm
ARTICLE V Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances: 1. [read post]
13 Nov 2013, 9:09 am
” (at [7]).The Learned Lord Justice does not appear to have been addressed at all (let alone at any length) on why that is wrong, but has stated it as law nonetheless. [read post]
4 Jul 2016, 1:39 am
Supreme Court The appeal will be heard today by a panel of five judges comprising Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr and Lord Toulson. [read post]
21 Jul 2014, 1:37 am
R (SG & Ors) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions,heard 29-30 April. [read post]
20 Dec 2011, 2:40 am
The courts should take into account agreements such as the MoU and should assume that they would be adhered to, following RB (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2009) UKHL. [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 1:31 am
R (SG & Ors) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions,heard 29-30 April. [read post]
31 Jan 2019, 12:03 pm
Park v. [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 2:23 am
This was the situation until the decision in Metropolitan Bank v Heiron, which was then followed by Lister & Co v Stubbs. [read post]
4 Nov 2015, 2:30 am
In delivering the lead judgment Lord Clarke stated that the critical question in this case of unjust enrichment was whether the appellant was enriched by the banks expense. [read post]
5 Oct 2010, 4:51 am
” [39] Lord Judge CJ then proceeded to discuss a number of Strasbourg authorities including in particular Atkinson, Crook and The Independent v. [read post]
