Search for: "Word v. Lord"
Results 141 - 160
of 2,054
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jan 2008, 8:01 pm
Palantir Technologies Inc. v. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 12:33 pm
The wording of reg 2 is convoluted, containing several double negatives. [read post]
10 Jun 2023, 4:02 pm
Darren Smyth (photo: Neil Graveney)The equivalents were a terrible idea, said Darren Smyth commenting on Actavis v Eli Lilly from the UK Supreme Court, which established that an infringed claim could be wider than the claim wording. [read post]
5 Nov 2010, 3:25 am
In the words of Thorpe LJ in Williams v. [read post]
28 Jan 2015, 5:01 am
The appeal was heard before Lord Justice Richards, Lord Justice Davis and Lord Justice Lloyd Jones. [read post]
11 Dec 2023, 8:33 am
Lord Justice Warby went on to apply the ‘ordinary and natural meaning’ of s 3 to the facts of the case, and concluded that the publication of the words and email satisfied the requirements of the section. [read post]
4 Oct 2010, 6:23 am
Some time ago Lord Prescott, Tom Watson MP and others whipped themselves into a lather about Andy Coulson, late of The News of The World and now Downing Street ‘Malcom Tucker’ for The Tory / Lib-Dem axis of…[ Please feel free to add your own word here to suit your tastes]. [read post]
18 Aug 2020, 5:13 am
The unanimous judgment was given by Lord Kerr (former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland), with whom Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Kitchin and Lord Burnett agreed. [read post]
7 Sep 2017, 1:42 pm
Tumey v. [read post]
28 Jun 2014, 3:23 pm
I think the words ‘practically impossible’ do set the standard at too high a level, but, as Chadwick LJ indicated, the threshold is relatively high. [read post]
1 Sep 2010, 6:53 am
In Xodus v. [read post]
23 Apr 2010, 5:15 am
Lord Phillips quoted with approval the following passage from Laws LJ in Thoburn v Sunderland City Council: “We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were ‘ordinary’ statutes and ‘constitutional’ statutes. [read post]
13 Aug 2014, 6:06 am
The words “serious harm” were sufficiently clear taken in their ordinary meaning and there was no ambiguity so as to bring the rule in Pepper v Hart into play. [39] The Judge then turned to the question of how serious harm might be proved. [read post]
6 Apr 2016, 1:30 am
The two marks were deemed to be similar, even with the fact that the word "glee" was a common word. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 10:48 am
On 6 July 2011, the UKSC delivered its judgment in Scottish Widows plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Scotland); Scottish Widows plc No 2 v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Scotland); Scottish Widows plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Scotland) [2011] UKSC 32. [read post]
6 Nov 2018, 8:41 am
Lachaux v Independent Print, Supreme Court to hear “serious harm” appeal On Tuesday and Wednesday 13 and 14 November 2018, the Supreme Court (Lords Kerr, Wilson, Sumption, Hodge and Briggs) will hear the appeal in Lachaux v Independent Print Limited & Anor UKSC 2017/0175, against the Court of Appeal decision of Davis LJ, with whom MacFarlane and Sharp LJJ concurred ([2017] EWCA Civ 1334). [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 2:53 pm
The problem here was the high threshold of evidence set out in R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor [2014] EWHC 218 (Admin), reported at [2014] ICR 498, R (Tabbakh) v Staffordshire and West Midlands Probation Trust [2014] EWCA Civ 827, and the second Unison case, R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor (No. 2) [2014] EWHC 4198 (Admin). [read post]
1 Jul 2011, 10:06 am
To be fair to the Court of Appeal, this was not particularly clear from the wording of those Regulations: Lord Mance (perhaps rather charitably) described their wording as “not perfect” (para 44). [read post]
17 Dec 2014, 2:13 am
The majority held that the words of A3P1 on their ordinary meaning refer to an obligation to hold periodic elections to a democratically elected legislature. [read post]
24 Jul 2009, 12:54 am
In Askew v. [read post]
