Search for: "Hale v. Harm"
Results 141 - 160
of 226
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Sep 2019, 5:52 am
This has been repeatedly confirmed both by local courts and the ECtHR (P v Poland [2012] ECHR 1853). [read post]
29 Nov 2010, 8:53 am
Miller v. [read post]
9 May 2022, 7:01 am
From Judge Freda Wolfson's opinion Friday in McGillvary v. [read post]
12 Jul 2022, 8:30 am
Voris and Hugel v. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 12:49 am
In the news Lord Neuberger is to be our next Supreme Court President, replacing Lord Philips who is retiring and pipping rival candidates Lady Hale and Lord Mance. [read post]
17 Dec 2018, 7:36 am
Lindenau v. [read post]
16 Mar 2023, 12:14 pm
"] From Alhathloul v. [read post]
22 Mar 2012, 6:47 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]
17 Jul 2017, 6:46 am
The Supreme Court of Canada has issued its decision in Google Inc v Equustek (28 June 2017). [read post]
17 Jul 2017, 6:46 am
The Supreme Court of Canada has issued its decision in Google Inc v Equustek (28 June 2017). [read post]
30 Jul 2009, 11:32 am
You can read the decision in Fisher v Brooker [2009] UKHL 41, in full and hot off the internet here and here.The Lord Law Lords (including one Legal Lady: Baroness Hale, who does remember the 1960s) have ruled that Fisher, who claimed he wrote the haunting pseudo-Bach organ melody which opened the song, is entitled to a share of future royalties. [read post]
24 Nov 2019, 4:08 pm
It goes on to say that a Conservative government will legislate “to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online – protecting children from online abuse and harms”, whilst “recognising and defending the invaluable role of a free press” – suggesting that the regulation will not extend to harmful content on newspaper websites. [read post]
2 May 2016, 9:02 pm
As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in United States v. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 2:04 am
The Supreme Court’s decision in Re E can be seen in some ways as guiding interpretation of Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention ‘back on track’, following the decision of the ECHR last year in Neulinger and Shuruk v Switzerland [2011] 1 FLR 122. [read post]
30 Jul 2016, 2:11 pm
Although it is a rare judgment from Lady Hale that does not reference it, it is not directly applicable in UK law. [read post]
10 May 2019, 4:48 pm
These cases range from ZH (Tanzania) v SSHD [2011] UKSC 4 (an immigration case) and ETK v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 439 through to PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC 26. [read post]
10 Nov 2019, 4:38 pm
Research and Resources More Serious Harm than Good? [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 10:22 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]
16 Feb 2020, 4:52 pm
On 12 February 2020 the Government published its initial response to last year’s Online Harms White Paper consultation. [read post]
