Search for: "AC v. State"
Results 1461 - 1480
of 1,882
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
2 Nov 2010, 5:43 pm
[Post by Venkat] State v. [read post]
1 Nov 2010, 11:45 pm
Gloucestershire County Council ex parte Barry [1997] AC 584) and in choosing between different means of meeting the assessed need [R v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Daykin [1998] 1 CCLR 512]. [read post]
29 Oct 2010, 3:57 am
While Article 8 may include a positive obligation on a member state to adopt measures to secure respect for private life between individuals, the state has a wide margin of appreciation as to what is required particularly where there is a balance between competing interests or Convention rights (see, for example, Evans v UK (2008) 46 EHRR 34 at [75], [77]; and see [81]) As a result, Article 8’s influence had led to the development in domestic law of a… [read post]
29 Oct 2010, 2:53 am
K&J had argued that a by the way statement made by Lord Templeman in Billson v Residential Apartments Ltd (No 1) [1992] 1 AC 494 to the effect that "I consider that the practice of ordering indemnity costs as a condition of granting relief is ripe for reconsideration" should be followed in preference to Chadwick LJ's statement of principle in Bland v Ingrams Estates Ltd (No 2) [2001] EWCA Civ 1088 at paragraph 14: "Third, the object of the court… [read post]
29 Oct 2010, 2:53 am
K&J had argued that a by the way statement made by Lord Templeman in Billson v Residential Apartments Ltd (No 1) [1992] 1 AC 494 to the effect that "I consider that the practice of ordering indemnity costs as a condition of granting relief is ripe for reconsideration" should be followed in preference to Chadwick LJ's statement of principle in Bland v Ingrams Estates Ltd (No 2) [2001] EWCA Civ 1088 at paragraph 14: "Third, the object of the court… [read post]
28 Oct 2010, 7:30 am
(Sierra Club v. [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 11:28 pm
But in R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] UKHL 23, [2003] 2 AC 295, para 26, Lord Slynn of Hadley said that the court should follow any clear and constant jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court.There are degrees; if there is a perception that Strasbourg has misconstrued UK law domestic courts will not follow their conclusion But when faced with a unanimous decision of the Grand Chamber, this was,… [read post]
26 Oct 2010, 5:21 pm
But as was stated in Re S, there is no presumptive priority between ECHR rights. [read post]
23 Oct 2010, 4:40 am
With one qualification that we will discuss below, the Supreme Court now appears to have clarified that this is the case, in Dozco India v Doosan, decided on 5 October, 2010. [read post]
22 Oct 2010, 7:15 am
As had been held by the HL in Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ [2008] 1 AC 385, deprivation of liberty might take a variety of forms other than classic detention in prison or strict arrest. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 3:08 pm
-Gen. v Punch Ltd [2003] 1 AC 1046 at [87]-[88] in the Court of Appeal and at [95] in the House of Lords; and Jockey Club v Buffham [2003] QB 462 (Gray J). [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 10:15 am
V .R. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 10:00 am
Girdharilal Yadav (2004) 6 SCC 325; State of Maharashtra v. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 5:21 am
Here's the video of the American Constitution Society's panel discussion on AT&T v. [read post]
20 Oct 2010, 11:24 pm
” (Hyman v Hyman [1929] AC 601) And this approach was codified in the Maintenance Agreements Act 1957 and reproduced in the 1973 Matrimonial Causes Act, although in the intervening years the feeling grew that the autonomy of freely determined separation agreements at least should be given some recognition. [read post]
19 Oct 2010, 6:27 pm
Co. v. [read post]
17 Oct 2010, 10:30 pm
” [see R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 37, [2006] 1 AC 173, per Lord Hoffman at p.186H]. [read post]
17 Oct 2010, 11:40 am
On that basis, Mr Hardy's state of mind at the time of sending the email amounted to "reckless indifference to the illegality of his act" (Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No 3) [2003] 2 AC 1 ). [read post]
17 Oct 2010, 11:40 am
On that basis, Mr Hardy's state of mind at the time of sending the email amounted to "reckless indifference to the illegality of his act" (Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No 3) [2003] 2 AC 1 ). [read post]
