Search for: "Hale v. Harm"
Results 121 - 140
of 226
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Feb 2009, 12:14 pm
His Lordship felt there were three basic propositions of law to consider and apply: (a) it was not enough to give rise to a duty of care that harm was foreseeable (Dorset Yacht Co v Home Office [1970] AC 1004); (b) the law did not ordinarily impose positive duties to protect others (Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd 1987 SC (HL) 37; (c) the law did not impose a duty to prevent a person being harmed by a criminal act of a third party merely because such… [read post]
29 Sep 2010, 6:21 am
., LLC v. [read post]
25 Jul 2017, 1:56 am
He says that if you are interested in protecting the hazardous and harmful drinkers, tax achieves this better, compared to minimum unit pricing. 1422: Mr O’Neill QC says tax can achieve what minimum unit pricing can, without distorting the market. [read post]
29 Mar 2015, 2:25 pm
However, and unfortunately for Mr A-L, while Baroness Hale, and indeed others, would have remitted the case for trial, there had been supervening events. [read post]
29 Oct 2021, 1:56 pm
By a 3:2 majority expressed “entirely obiter” (Brownlie II, at [45]) the Court had answered affirmatively: [48]-[55] (Baroness Hale), [56] (Lord Wilson) & [68]-[69] (Lord Clarke). [read post]
15 Jun 2011, 12:50 am
There was no indication that the interests and welfare of E’s two younger sisters had been taken into account, and no reference was made to the concern that delays in therapy would be harmful to the children. [read post]
12 Sep 2016, 3:55 pm
Ward v LB Haringey. [read post]
5 Nov 2019, 3:15 am
Handing down its judgment on 30 October 2019, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, with Lady Hale stating that this was a case “bristling with simplicity”. [read post]
13 May 2015, 2:09 am
This was a point of appeal from Kanu v Southwark (our report). [read post]
25 Jun 2017, 10:42 pm
By 8-1, the Court mowed down an effort by the Supreme Court of California to hale a drug-maker into a San Francisco trial court over harm that its Plavix product may have caused to non-Californians. [read post]
4 Mar 2016, 2:01 pm
Here’s a nice personal jurisdiction decision (TV Azteca v. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 10:28 am
Lord Phillips considered the various formulations of the test of “public interest” in Reynolds [2001] 2 AC 127 and Jameel [2007] 1 AC 359, agreeing with Lady Hale’s formulation in the latter case that “There must be some real public interest in having this information in the public domain. [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 11:12 am
" Hale v. [read post]
20 Nov 2015, 4:36 pm
In the Court’s view this distinguished the case from Baroness Hale’s example of Naomi Campbell popping out to the shops to buy a carton of milk. [read post]
22 Jan 2020, 1:01 pm
Walden v. [read post]
24 May 2011, 10:55 pm
By the time the Court of Appeal came to hear AP’s immigration appeal, he had committed a further offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, although this was immaterial for the purposes of the appeal. [read post]
13 Nov 2019, 4:36 pm
” (Rhodes v OPO [76]). [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 9:12 pm
Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc. (1959); United States v. [read post]
27 May 2011, 2:54 am
The Supreme Court The appeal has been heard by Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lady Hale of Richmond, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore and Sir Nicholas Wilson. [read post]
2 Feb 2018, 8:00 am
Whiting v. [read post]
