Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 1181 - 1200
of 4,049
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Jul 2017, 8:47 am
The judgment comes as a surprise, as the previously established UK case law had over time firmly done away with the idea of ‘pith and marrow’ infringement, culminating in the seminal House of Lords judgment in Kirin-Amgen v Hoechst Marion Roussel [2004] UKHL 46. [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 4:15 pm
Moreover, the US Department of State Human Rights Report for Uganda cites examples to unlawful killings and torture, and other abuses of detainees and suspects. [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 1:34 pm
" That led the court to a consideration of prior English case law as well of that of other EPC member states. [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]
12 Jul 2017, 3:30 am
The Lord laid too much guilt on me. [read post]
11 Jul 2017, 12:45 pm
United States v. [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 7:00 am
In March 2017, the Supreme Court (sitting in a panel comprising Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr and Lord Hughes) heard the appeal of the Metropolitan Police Service (“MPS”) in the case of Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v DSD & Anor. [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 2:46 am
Lord Carnwath’s interpretation of the Strasbourg jurisprudence did not support a general view that appellant’s oral evidence is a necessary part of an “effective” appeal in the sense contemplated by De Souza Ribeiro (which was interpreted restrictively in IR v UK [2014] ECHR 340). [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 2:46 am
As demonstrated by Mamatkulov v Turkey (2005) 41 EHRR 25, DFAL’s criterion of serious irreversible harm shows some intersection with the ECtHR’s application of rule 39 relief. [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 1:00 am
R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor, heard 27-28 Mar 2017. [read post]
6 Jul 2017, 2:28 pm
To cut to the chase (and omit the first hundred or so paragraphs), following Lord Kerr in A v Essex County Council (National Autistic Society intervening) [2011] AC 280; [2010] UKSC 33 the High Court found that a failure to take steps to provide education when the state authority responsible for providing it is aware of the absence of the pupil from any form of education could in certain circumstances give rise to a breach of the right. [read post]
4 Jul 2017, 4:30 pm
(iii) It seems to me the parties are generally entitled to state their respective cases in such a statement and their respective admissions. [read post]
4 Jul 2017, 7:03 am
The Supreme Court held that the Appeal Court had not applied the correct test from R (Bagdanavicius) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, which for threats from third parties is whether the state has failed to provide reasonable protection against harm inflicted by non-state agents. [read post]
3 Jul 2017, 1:00 am
R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor, heard 27-28 Mar 2017. [read post]
30 Jun 2017, 11:52 am
But Lord Justice Atkins’ conclusion on this limb of the case highlights the near-impossibility, at least in the present state of authority, of doing anything about it if a final look shows the result to be unjust. [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 2:24 am
The Appeal Court failed to draw a distinction between the threat from other prisoners, and the conduct for which the state was responsible, whereas the correct legal test when the threat comes from the acts of third parties is whether the state has failed to provide reasonable protection against harm inflicted by non-state agents. [read post]
27 Jun 2017, 5:29 pm
Investment Corp. v. [read post]
27 Jun 2017, 2:58 pm
He is our fifth Lord Chancellor in just five years. [read post]
27 Jun 2017, 9:23 am
As Lord Evershed M.R. stated in Zamet v. [read post]
26 Jun 2017, 1:00 am
R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor, heard 27-28 Mar 2017. [read post]
