Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 1521 - 1540
of 4,049
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Feb 2016, 3:00 am
In giving the lead judgment, Lord Sumption stated that s 12A of the Theft Act imposes strict liability only to the extent that anyone who was party to the taking of the vehicle (and in the immediate vicinity at the time of the injury) commits the offence, whether or not he was driving at the time. [read post]
1 Feb 2016, 6:51 am
”); Lord v. [read post]
1 Feb 2016, 6:51 am
”); Lord v. [read post]
31 Jan 2016, 9:01 pm
For a more complete transcript, see the appendix to Paramount Communications Inc. v. [read post]
30 Jan 2016, 4:32 am
That was the difficult question the Supreme Court had to grapple with in the case of R(C) v. [read post]
29 Jan 2016, 6:19 am
The Supreme Court recently handed down its judgment in the case of Eclairs Group Ltd v JKX Oil & Gas Plc [2015] UKSC 71 (read our Case Preview here). [read post]
27 Jan 2016, 1:18 pm
The dispute found its way to the Court of Appeal last May, where Lord Justice Kitchin held that the language of the settlement agreement precluded H&M from raising invalidity arguments in defence of the new claim. [read post]
27 Jan 2016, 3:09 am
In delivering the lead judgment Lord Carnwath provisionally stated that the decision in 2005 was the exercise of prerogative powers for the conduct of foreign relations. [read post]
27 Jan 2016, 2:29 am
In giving the leading judgment Lord Neuberger first addressed the appellant’s claim that the refusal to allow them to claim benefits infringed their rights under the TFEU. [read post]
26 Jan 2016, 4:35 am
As Laing J observed in Merlin v Cave [2014] EWHC 3036 (QB): “There is no express indication in the PHA that Parliament intended the provisions of the PHA to abrogate the rights conferred by Article 10, or to change the law of defamation, which is, by necessary implication, involved in any consideration of the scope of the legitimate restrictions which may be placed by a contracting state on the rights conferred by Article 10. [read post]
25 Jan 2016, 7:31 am
Lord Reed noted that this was contrary to the principle under UK administrative law that a statutory power must be exercised by the person on whom the power has been conferred (R v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison ex parte Hague [1990] UKHL 8 and Leech v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison [1988] UKHL 16 cited). [read post]
22 Jan 2016, 1:28 pm
” Similarly in Rosenberger v. [read post]
20 Jan 2016, 7:00 am
Of interest to constitutional lawyers, the Court embarked upon a detailed consideration of an earlier decision in Quark Fishing Ltd v UK, App. [read post]
19 Jan 2016, 8:36 am
At that time Selangor was a British Protected State in the Federation of Malaysia. [read post]
16 Jan 2016, 1:41 am
In doing so, he referred to the leading authority Proctor v Bailey(1889) 42 Ch 390, which states that “… an injunction is granted for prevention, and where there is no ground for apprehending the repetition of a wrongful act there is no ground for an injunction“. [read post]
15 Jan 2016, 10:27 am
Quoting Benedetti v Sawiris [2013] UKSC 50, Lord Clarke held that the court must ask itself four questions when faced with a claim for unjust enrichment: “(1) Has the defendant been enriched? [read post]
15 Jan 2016, 9:09 am
Lord Carnwath stated that there is nothing to rule out consideration of mitigation measures at the EIA screening stage, but the Directive and the Regulations expressly envisage that they will where appropriate be included in the environmental statement. [read post]
15 Jan 2016, 8:58 am
Douglas, prepared the famous case, Brown v. [read post]
15 Jan 2016, 5:49 am
It was most likely some classic tort or contract case (see Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Bomb or Caparo v Dickman). [read post]
14 Jan 2016, 8:00 am
As noted in Arnold, compensation for mental distress arising from breach of this type of contract is “consistent with a long line of cases, beginning with the famous judgment of Lord Denning in Jarvis v. [read post]
