Search for: "Tower v. Tower" Results 1141 - 1160 of 2,017
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Aug 2009, 9:36 am
  In Runa Begum v Tower Hamlets [2003] 2 AC 430, Lords Bingham and Millett had made pretty scathing comments on the lawfulness of contracting out the review function – Lord Bingham (at [10]) had “very considerable doubts” whether it was a function; and Lord Millett agreeing pointed out that the SI was “concerned in very general terms with deregulation and the subcontracting of ordinary local authority functions” and was… [read post]
13 Jul 2007, 11:08 am
Alas, after 38 years of marriage, the memories of the Eiffel Tower and strolling along the Seine faded and the parties sought a divorce. [read post]
The fall protection provision was revised to include new requirements for the use of fall restraint systems or personal fall arrest systems in aerial lifts and for the use of fall protection equipment by qualified employees climbing or changing location on poles, towers, or similar structures. [read post]
17 Mar 2017, 12:09 pm by Jordan Brunner
  John Bellinger commented that the Alien Tort Statute case Doe v. [read post]
22 Jul 2021, 1:26 am by Tessa Shepperson
Surrender and re-grant Well, apparently he could, as this had happened (in different circumstances) in a 1994 case called Tower Hamlets v Ayinde. [read post]
28 Feb 2022, 2:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
  The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding: (As of 02/03/22) The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc v Ukraine (Represented by the Minister of Finance of Ukraine acting upon the instructions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) Nos. 2 and 3, heard 9-12 December 2019 BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and Ors, heard 4 May 2021 Bott & Co Solicitors v Ryanair DAC, heard 20 May 2021 East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Flowers and Ors,… [read post]
4 Sep 2014, 11:42 am by Lyle Denniston
City of Roswell – the duty of a local government to spell out the reasons for denying a permit for a cellphone tower M&G Polymers USA v. [read post]