Search for: "State v. Lord" Results 1081 - 1100 of 3,608
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Feb 2016, 2:18 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
In giving the lead judgment Lord Hodge stated that, against the background of the other relevant provisions of ICTA, the court concluded that s 103 does not contain an implicit restriction so that the charge to tax on post-cessation receipts falls only on the former trader whose trade was the source of the income. [read post]
28 Mar 2015, 5:41 pm by INFORRM
As Lord Browne-Wilkinson said in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Pierson [1998] AC 539: A power conferred by Parliament in general terms is not to be taken to authorise the doing of acts by the donee of the power which adversely affect the legal rights of the citizen or the basic principles on which the law of the United Kingdom is based unless the statute conferring the power makes it clear that such was the intention of Parliament. [read post]
17 Dec 2018, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
R (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice; R (Nealon) v Secretary of State for Justice, heard 8-9 May 2018. [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 11:44 pm
Retromark Volume V: the last six months in trade marks1. [read post]
14 Feb 2021, 4:45 pm by INFORRM
On 11 February Lord Justice Warby handed down judgment on the summary judgment application in the case of HRH Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] EWHC 273 (Ch). [read post]
1 Feb 2015, 4:06 pm by INFORRM
Palmer used twitter to announce his plan to sue after the state election. [read post]
16 Jan 2019, 4:48 pm by INFORRM
Butt v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 17 October 2018 (Underhill V-P, Sharp LJ and Sir Rupert Jackson). [read post]
26 Jul 2018, 2:26 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
Lord Briggs giving the lead judgment, held that the principle of equivalence required that the procedural rules of member states applicable to claims based on EU law are no less favourable than those governing similar domestic claims [3]. [read post]
11 Feb 2012, 12:36 am by INFORRM
This could be a recipe for confusion” (Campbell v MGN [2004] 2 AC 457 [22], Lord Nicholls). [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 7:59 am
" That led the court to a consideration of prior English case law as well of that of other EPC member states. [read post]
6 Apr 2010, 5:18 am by INFORRM
  Dame Janet Smith, in wording subsequently wholly endorsed by Lord Hutton, stated: “… in my view Article 10(1) does not bear upon the right of access to information that another holds but has not made accessible and does not wish to impart… The first sentence states the principle: ‘Everyone has the right of freedom of expression’. [read post]
25 May 2012, 10:06 am by Laura Sandwell
On Tuesday the ECtHR ruled that member states must give some prisoners the right to vote in Scoppola v Italy, and has imposed a timetable for the UK’s compliance. [read post]
13 Aug 2014, 6:06 am by INFORRM
The Claimants had sought to rely on an observation made by Lord McNally, the Minister of State in charge of the Bill, in the House of Lords Grand Committee debate of 17 December 2012, when he said: “Our view is that the serious harm test would raise the bar to a modest extent above the requirement of the current law. [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 2:20 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
The Lord Ordinary upheld their challenge on other grounds but indicated that, if necessary, she would have upheld the challenge under the Directive. [read post]
3 Nov 2016, 5:01 am
 The citation is R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin). [read post]
20 Jul 2011, 12:07 am by INFORRM
Christopher Hutcheson (formerly known as KGM) v News Group Newspapers and others [2011] EWCA Civ 808 In these turbulent times for Rupert Murdoch (see the UK Human Rights Blog contempt post) it seems strange to see one of his newspapers being vindicated by the courts, but, for once, The Sun seems to have been on the side of the angels. [read post]
2 Mar 2013, 1:58 am by INFORRM
There was, in my view, no allegation of scandal beyond the stated facts. [read post]