Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 1081 - 1100
of 4,049
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Apr 2013, 6:53 am
In that sense the Supreme Court judgment has similarities to the Canadian Supreme Court Copyright Pentalogy and the CJEU decision in Usedsoft v Oracle.The approach articulated by Lord Sumption is the opposite of that stated by Proudman J at first instance: "The exception cannot have been intended to legitimise all copies made in the course of browsing or users would be permitted to watch pirated films and listen to pirated music." [read post]
6 Jul 2022, 2:34 am
Lord Hamblen and Lady Rose dissent. [read post]
31 Jan 2019, 12:03 pm
Park v. [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 8:31 am
London Christian Radio Ltd and Anor v Radio Advertising Clearance Centre (RACC) and Secretary of State for Culture – read judgment The High Court has upheld the refusal of the broadcasting regulator to clear an advertisement for transmission on the grounds that it offended the prohibition on political advertising. [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]
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]
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]
21 Jul 2014, 1:37 am
R (SG & Ors) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions,heard 29-30 April. [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]
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]
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]
1 Oct 2021, 12:26 am
And on 21 September 2021, a majority of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Lord Justice Arnold and Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing, Lord Justice Birss dissenting) upheld a decision of the High Court which agreed with the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) that Thaler’s applications should be deemed withdrawn because of his failure to identify a natural person as inventor (Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents Trade Marks And Designs [2021] EWCA Civ… [read post]
1 Oct 2021, 12:26 am
And on 21 September 2021, a majority of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Lord Justice Arnold and Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing, Lord Justice Birss dissenting) upheld a decision of the High Court which agreed with the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) that Thaler’s applications should be deemed withdrawn because of his failure to identify a natural person as inventor (Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents Trade Marks And Designs [2021] EWCA Civ… [read post]
19 Jul 2008, 11:22 am
United States. [read post]
11 Feb 2012, 12:29 pm
AT v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 42 – Read Judgment The Court of Appeal has upheld a challenge to a control order on the basis that the person subject to the order (‘the controllee’) had not been given sufficient information about the case against him. [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]
12 Nov 2021, 12:01 am
Manderino, writing for the court in Kroger Co. v. [read post]
