Search for: "People v. Neuberger"
Results 101 - 120
of 163
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Apr 2010, 3:59 am
(b) Father Clonan’s functions as a priest included a duty to evangelise, or “to bring the gospel to be known to other people”. [read post]
2 Sep 2013, 4:29 am
Two differently constituted Courts of Appeal for England and Wales, within a very short period, appear to have come up with quite different approaches to how to treat an appeal in which they take issue with the trial judge's findings of fact, one case being Lumos and the other being Okotoks v Fine & Country (noted by the IPKat here). [read post]
30 Sep 2022, 5:01 am
Neuberger made the introductions. [read post]
17 May 2015, 1:08 am
It is not sufficient that the repute would lead people in England to visit the venue when they visited Paris (Alain Bernardin et Cie v Pavilion Properties Ltd [1967] RPC 581). [read post]
17 Aug 2014, 5:11 pm
They were as follows: Social Media: How many people use Twitter and what do we think about it? [read post]
7 Oct 2022, 8:21 am
Insofar as Mostyn J had previously determined otherwise in cases such as DL v SL [2015] EWHC 2621 (Fam); [2016] 1 WLR 1259 and Appleton v Gallagher, he was wrong: Gallagher at [33]-[34]. [read post]
19 Oct 2011, 11:03 am
The Green Paper begins by setting out the familiar tension between protecting national security, by ensuring that sensitive information is not revealed to the wrong people, and upholding the right of people to know the case against them in court. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 12:53 am
The Act prescribes the right of people in Scotland to claim damages for an asbestos-related condition. [read post]
19 Mar 2023, 12:56 pm
As famously expressed by Knight Bruce V-C in Walter v Selfe (1851) 4 De G & Sm 315, 322, the question is whether the interference ought to be considered a material inconvenience “not merely according to elegant or dainty modes and habits of living, but according to plain and sober and simple notions among the English people”; see also Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd (2013) QB 455, para 36(ii). [read post]
14 Apr 2023, 1:50 am
The Supreme Court unanimously held that Ukraine had a justiciable and arguable defence of duress based on Russia’s alleged threats to Ukrainian people or property. [read post]
20 Nov 2009, 4:42 am
The team lined up for this purpose is Lord Neuberger MR, Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justice Sullivan. [read post]
22 Jun 2015, 7:43 am
Thus in Pham v. [read post]
20 Dec 2010, 12:25 am
As we have reported in a post last week Lord Neuberger’s made general comments about anonymity in court proceedings in the court of appeal. [read post]
10 Oct 2011, 12:34 am
Lord Neuberger gave a speech at the EWI annual conference last week, focusing on the UKSC judgment Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13 and the growth of an inquisitorial rather than adversarial litigation model with regard to expert witnesses. [read post]
30 Apr 2020, 12:48 pm
Lord Neuberger, the president of the court at the time, explained that the “archive will help people see the background to decisions made” in the court. [read post]
10 Oct 2011, 12:34 am
Lord Neuberger gave a speech at the EWI annual conference last week, focusing on the UKSC judgment Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13 and the growth of an inquisitorial rather than adversarial litigation model with regard to expert witnesses. [read post]
12 Jul 2018, 6:19 am
The panel included two of the Supreme Court Judges who had decided Actavis – Lord Neuberger and Lord Sumption as well as leading patents judges from Germany, the Netherlands and the US and attracted an audience of over 600 people. [read post]
8 Jul 2020, 4:02 pm
The recent case of Ameyaw v McGoldrick [2020] EWHC 1741 (QB) offers a cautionary tale about McKenzie Friends and what they can and can’t do for you in court. [read post]
10 Jun 2015, 6:45 am
But there we go – that is the “Carrollian” effect of the rule to which both Lord Neuberger and Baroness Hale referred. [read post]
8 Jan 2016, 10:03 am
Lord Neuberger was also keen to stress that commercial common sense (which had been applied in Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50 where there was ambiguity in the interpretation of a clause) should not be “invoked to undervalue the importance of the language of the provision which is to be construed”. [read post]
