Search for: "State v. Lord"
Results 1121 - 1140
of 3,608
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 May 2009, 2:36 pm
In Kay, Lord Brown expressly stated that Connors could been argued as an “unfairness” challenge in the domestic courts and in Doherty, Lord Hope makes clear that the challenges are not confined to Wednesbury grounds. [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 10:08 pm
So all member state courts, however humble, can determine matters of EU law, a state of affairs which in Lord Neuberger’s words “has important consequences. [read post]
13 Aug 2024, 6:13 am
From Thursday's decision in Youth 71Five Ministries v. [read post]
10 Dec 2014, 12:31 am
This Kat did not have time to get round to reading Hospira v Genentech when it first emerged, and did not immediately notice that it was an entire new case in its own right, and not simply a codicil to the decision that he reported here. [read post]
22 Feb 2011, 6:55 am
” In today’s second case, United States v. [read post]
11 Dec 2009, 8:13 am
The House of Lords decision in Jones v. [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 8:20 am
That would have been the end of the matter, but for the House of Lords, which decided in the combined case of A v Hoare to reverse its own decision in Stubbings (1COR’s Lizanne Gumbel QC was for most of the appellants although not Mr Hoare). [read post]
1 Apr 2022, 7:43 am
Interestingly, Lord Briggs (who joined the majority), noted that “the simple test proposed by Lady Arden and Lord Burrows may occasionally involve the recognition of the equitable lien in wider circumstances than is strictly justified by its animating access to justice principle. [read post]
9 Nov 2016, 1:43 am
The pier had reached a state of dilapidation and disrepair. [read post]
25 Mar 2019, 2:00 am
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Gubeladze, heard 12-13 Mar 2019. [read post]
7 Feb 2022, 4:09 pm
Where a state breaches the ECHR, a Court set up by signatory members – the European Court of Human Rights (which has nothing to do with the European Union) – can order a state to pay an aggrieved citizen compensation. [read post]
4 Dec 2014, 9:04 am
However, the justices did discuss it, with a notable point arising in that Lord Collins and Lord Sumption agreed that the contract, as well as the conveyance and the mortgage, were all part of the same transaction, whilst Lady Hale, Lord Wilson and Lord Reed disagreed that the contract was part of the indivisible transaction. [read post]
27 Mar 2017, 1:00 am
R (Kiarie) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (Byndloss) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 15-16 February 2017. [read post]
27 Apr 2022, 3:11 am
Lord Briggs and Lord Sales reject this. [read post]
22 Sep 2016, 7:10 am
One way of putting this is whether the skilled person “would”, rather than “could”, arrive at the claimed invention without inventive effort (mirroring the EPO test of T2/83), but Lord Justice Floyd (delivering the Court of Appeal decision with which Lord Justice Kitchin and Lord Justice David Richards agreed) stated that this dichotomy can be misleading, as it may bring in non-technical considerations that are not… [read post]
9 May 2016, 12:05 am
R (Public Law Project) v The Lord Chancellor, heard 18 April 2016. [read post]
20 Nov 2012, 10:04 am
In today's ruling the court (Lords Justices Lewison -- who is a former Patents Court judge -- Etherton and Hughes) allowed M&S's appeal. [read post]
1 Oct 2023, 6:30 am
In the recent UK Supreme Court decision O (a minor), R (on the application of v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKSC 3, Lord Hodge provided a pithy statement of the approach of the courts in that jurisdiction. [read post]
15 Apr 2012, 8:28 pm
In Talmage Lord v. [read post]
14 Apr 2023, 1:50 am
(Fourth issue) The Supreme Court’s judgment Lord Reed, Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lord Kitchin, with whom Lord Hodge agreed, gave the majority judgment, with Lord Carnwath dissenting in part. [read post]
