Search for: "MS v. AS " Results 121 - 140 of 13,908
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Jun 2024, 12:33 am by Frank Cranmer
And finally…II For any tort/obligations geeks out there: the memorial tablet to Donoghue v Stevenson on the site of the Wellmeadow Café: [read post]
25 Jun 2024, 11:18 am by Roberto Rodrigues Pinho (RNA Law)
  Furthermore, the PDP Project proposal must now include information on “intellectual property, exclusivity contracts or commercial agreements, including details of any agreements or restrictions on licensing or 3rd-party access to the technology” (Annex CX, article 8, V). [read post]
23 Jun 2024, 8:38 pm by Josh Blackman
" Long story short, the government suspected that Asencio-Cordero had some connections with the MS-13 gang. [read post]
23 Jun 2024, 9:31 am by Giles Peaker
Ms AK applied to Westminster for a reciprocal transfer, meaning that Westminster would provide her with accommodation and in return have accommodation available to it for a Westminster tenant in AK’s borough. [read post]
18 Jun 2024, 2:30 am by David Ashmore and Jonathan Lord
While most in England are debating whether it should be Ivan Toney or Ollie Watkins as first-choice deputy for Harry Kane, in the employment law world we have been focusing on the strikers at the heart of an important new Supreme Court decision in Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Mercer. [read post]
16 Jun 2024, 10:48 pm by Chukwuma Okoli
In Sonnar (Nig) Ltd v Partenreedri MS Norwind (1987) 4 NWLR 520 at 544 Oputa JSC of the Nigerian Supreme Court, although concurring, expressed a separate view that as a matter of public policy, Nigerian courts “should not be too eager to divest themselves of jurisdiction conferred on them by the Constitution and by other laws simply because parties in their private contracts chose a foreign forum. [read post]
16 Jun 2024, 4:16 pm by INFORRM
‘The Lost King’ was found by HHJ Lewis to bear the meaning that (i) the claimant knowingly misrepresented facts to the media and the public about the University’s role in finding Richard III’s remains and marginalising Langley’s role; and (ii) the claimant was “smug, unduly dismissive and patronising” towards Ms Langley in relation to the project. 5RB summarised the ruling. [read post]