Search for: "State v. Lord"
Results 1041 - 1060
of 4,049
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Dec 2013, 7:16 am
In their explanatory blog post, the NRP draws parallels to the famous 1772 case of Somerset v. [read post]
19 Sep 2011, 11:33 am
If the makers of Ganesh v. [read post]
27 May 2016, 1:00 am
It noted that the House of Lords (in R (Clift) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 54) had concluded that being treated differently due to one’s status as a prisoner did not come within the ambit of Article 14 discrimination. [read post]
5 Aug 2014, 10:14 am
Thus, in R (Elias) v Secretary of State for Defence [2006] 1 WLR 3213 para 165 provides that in discrimination cases there should be a structured approach to the question of justification: “First, is the objective sufficiently important to justify limiting a fundamental right? [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 8:02 am
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Ministry of Defence v Cartner [2011] EWCA Civ 1516 (08 December 2011) Country Style Foods Ltd v Bouzir [2011] EWCA Civ 1519 (08 December 2011) Cusack v London Borough of Harrow [2011] EWCA Civ 1514 (07 December 2011) Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) MO, & Ors, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 2854 (08 December 2011) High Court (Administrative Court) Bates, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice… [read post]
Case Comment: R (ZH and CN) v London Borough of Newham and London Borough of Lewisham [2014] UKSC 62
14 May 2015, 1:59 am
Lord Neuberger &n [read post]
12 Feb 2018, 3:40 am
They might find some consolation in Lord Hughes (from [102] onwards), who did not think that the distinction between positive acts and omissions was the sole explanation for the previous decisions protective of the police. [read post]
20 Apr 2017, 2:00 am
More significantly, member states would risk breaching of their obligations under the international instruments cited. [read post]
4 Jul 2016, 1:45 am
The panel will be Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Sumption, Lord Hughes and Lord Toulson. [read post]
12 Jul 2010, 1:10 am
It noted that the problem of deciding the Court’s temporal jurisdiction had been considered with varying results in previous cases, notably Blecic v Croatia (2006) 43 E.H.R.R. 48, Moldovan v Romania (2007) 44 E.H.R.R. 16, Balasoiu v Romania (App. no. 37424/97), 2 September 2003, and Kholodova v Russia (App. no. 30651/05), 14 September 2006. [read post]
12 Nov 2018, 1:00 am
R (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice; R (Nealon) v Secretary of State for Justice, heard 8-9 May 2018. [read post]
29 Apr 2021, 3:56 am
In addition, the applicant relied on the judgment in Lord Janner v Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2015] EWHC 2578 (Admin) in which the Divisional Court found that the Magistrates’ Court had no power to send a defendant for trial under section 51 CDA 1998 if they are not present in the courtroom. [read post]
2 Dec 2016, 11:00 am
It is difficult to conceive of a case that better fits this description than R (Miller & Anor) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. [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]
2 Nov 2020, 1:00 am
The first is Secretary of State for Health and Ors v Servier Laboratories and Ors. [read post]
17 Nov 2014, 7:03 am
Lord Wilson gave the leading judgment; Lord Kerr, Lady Hale and Lord Clarke agreed with him. [read post]
15 Jan 2010, 8:28 am
The Supreme Court of the United States heard argument in Abbott v. [read post]
1 Aug 2017, 12:53 am
Lord Justice Lloyd Jones: Appeal permitted with no further comment. [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]
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]
