Search for: "People v. London" Results 101 - 120 of 1,611
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Jan 2011, 3:33 pm by NL
Hussain v London Borough of Hounslow [2010] EW Misc 15 (CC) (01 December 2010) Not sure why this one wasn’t written up in November. [read post]
23 Mar 2013, 11:01 am by J
I have been provided with a note of judgment and so can give you a bit more detail.Imagine, if you will, that a large number of the good people of North London are, to put it mildly, somewhat dissatisfied with the Tory/Lib Dem cuts to public expenditure (a view, I should add, which is plainly shared by all right-thinking people). [read post]
25 Oct 2023, 4:44 pm by INFORRM
Floyd Alexander-Hunt is an LLM candidate at Queen Mary University London and a research assistant at K [read post]
22 Nov 2011, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
Senior people are above this childish, vain practice of peer review. [read post]
10 Nov 2013, 7:38 am by Giles Peaker
London Borough of Wandsworth v NJ [2013] EWCA Civ 1373NJ applied as homeless to Wandsworth. [read post]
26 Jul 2018, 12:11 am
Enough people fell into the latter camp for there to be infringement. [read post]
8 Oct 2013, 2:57 pm
 Regent University v Regent's University London [2013] EWPCC 39 Patents County Court, 6 September 2013, is a decision of Mr Recorder Alastair Wilson QC that has so far received little attention, possibly because it's only an interim ruling from a junior court. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 3:24 pm by NL
Hill (1995) 27 HLR 368; Lambeth London Borough Council v Hughes (2001) 33 HLR 33. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 3:24 pm by NL
Hill (1995) 27 HLR 368; Lambeth London Borough Council v Hughes (2001) 33 HLR 33. [read post]
12 Aug 2011, 4:00 am by Anthony Fairclough, Matrix Law
Riots in London and other major cities have dominated the news this week. [read post]
4 Nov 2006, 5:54 pm
A dozen Catholics were caught preparing fuses to blow up London's Westminster Palace with barrels of gunpowder. [read post]
Previously the test for “dishonesty” laid down in R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053 required the prosecution to prove (1) that the actions of the defendant were dishonest by the lay objective standards of ordinary, reasonable and honest people and (2) that the defendant must have realised that ordinary honest people would regard his behaviour as having fallen below those standards. [read post]