Search for: "AC v. State"
Results 1441 - 1460
of 1,882
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Nov 2010, 11:59 am
The House of Lords however, in Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley, [2002] 2 AC 164, complicated matters. [read post]
26 Nov 2010, 4:45 am
At the moment the range of tests for persecution on return is dizzyingly confusing: Refugee Convention – a reasonable degree of likelihood for f (R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Sivakumaran [1988] AC 958) Article 3 ECHR -”substantial grounds” (Vilvarajah v UK (1991) 14 EHRR 248) Extradition – balance of probabilities for past and existing facts (Fernandez v Government of Singapore [1971] 1 WLR 987) Extradition… [read post]
25 Nov 2010, 4:08 pm
This is in line with one of the “limiting principles” in the law of breach of confidence, as stated in the Spycatcher litigation (Attorney-General v Observer Ltd [1990] 1 AC 109 HL) that the law would not protect the trivial or the anodyne. [read post]
24 Nov 2010, 4:19 pm
For example in R (on the application of L) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2010] 1 AC 410, the police had disclosed information relating to the applicant in an enhanced criminal record certificate. [read post]
21 Nov 2010, 1:34 pm
The court found that the work was too short or slight to amount to a copyright work.The Court also stated that although the word was invented and original it had no particular meaning comparing it with the word 'Jabberwocky' used for Lewis Carroll's famous poem. [read post]
20 Nov 2010, 2:01 am
Local authorities have been prevented from suing for defamation since Derbyshire v Times Newspapers [1993] AC 534 HL. [read post]
18 Nov 2010, 10:01 pm
(AC at pp. 713, 714). [read post]
12 Nov 2010, 3:11 pm
I shall provide two important hints.Hint #1: The source is one of the following:- Access Copyright (“AC”)- Association of Universities and Colleges Canada (“AUCC”)- Canadian Association of Research Libraries ("CARL")- Council of Ministers of Education Canada ("CMEC")Hint #2:The landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision dealing with fair dealing, namely CCH. v. [read post]
12 Nov 2010, 10:22 am
In Inmacs Ltd. v. [read post]
11 Nov 2010, 10:51 am
Per the United States 5th Circuit opinion in Guaranty National Insurance Company v. [read post]
10 Nov 2010, 12:19 pm
Mr Pickles will now have to consider primary legislation to accomplish his stated end. [read post]
10 Nov 2010, 12:19 pm
Mr Pickles will now have to consider primary legislation to accomplish his stated end. [read post]
9 Nov 2010, 9:58 pm
It has been widely debated in recent cases (R (Smith) v Secretary for Defence [2010] UKSC 29 (see our post); Al-Skeini & Others v Secretary of State for Defence [2008] 1 AC 153, currently before the Grand Chamber; Bankovic v Belgium [2001] 11 BHRC 435) whether Article 1 ECHR guarantees the rights and freedoms of the Convention to those outside of the State’s jurisdiction. [read post]
8 Nov 2010, 4:32 pm
As the Privy Council said in Gleaner v Abrahams ([2004] 1 AC 628): “[Defamation] damages often serve not only as compensation but also as an effective and necessary deterrent. [read post]
8 Nov 2010, 12:43 pm
(Originally posted on ACS Blog.) [read post]
5 Nov 2010, 8:49 pm
FTC v. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 3:24 pm
" See Southwark v Tanner [2001] 1 AC 1. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 3:24 pm
" See Southwark v Tanner [2001] 1 AC 1. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 8:07 am
In Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 12:53 am
The action then shifted back to the House of Lords, who in Doherty v Birmingham CC [2009] 1 AC 367 (our note is here) reaffirmed the majority approach in Kay, although they crowbarred a bit more into gateway (b). [read post]
