Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 1601 - 1620
of 3,574
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Sep 2019, 12:49 am
Aidan O’Neill QC argues that following the case of Andy Wightman MSP and others v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU it is clear that the Article 50 notification can be withdrawn at any time. [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 4:03 am
Scarlet v SABAM The SABAM is the Belgian equivalent of PRS, a royalty collecting agency representing music artists. [read post]
23 Jan 2023, 5:57 am
These cases demonstrate clearly the change of position as compared with Allianz v West Tankers and Turner v Grovit, respectively. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 12:58 am
In the recent judgment, AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC [2011] EWCA Civ 647, the Court of Appeal held that an anti-suit injunction can be granted to restrain foreign proceedings brought in breach of an English arbitration agreement, even in the absence of an actual, proposed or intended arbitration.The dispute arose out of a concession agreement to produce hydroelectric energy between the state of Kazakhstan government (D) and a US… [read post]
13 Mar 2018, 8:38 am
In Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Group plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners [2001] EWCA Civ 1476 we had Lord Justice Sedley describing the world of VAT as “a kind of fiscal theme park in which factual and legal realities are suspended or inverted”. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 1:00 am
The panel will be Lord Neuberger, Lord Kerr and Lord Reed. [read post]
3 Mar 2023, 9:25 pm
Lord knows I better. [read post]
26 Jul 2012, 9:24 am
” The Secretary of State appealed these findings. [read post]
22 Nov 2012, 9:01 am
That is the sort of rule of law Lord Wilberforce had in mind when he dismissed the “the superimposition of a judicially invented rule of law”. [read post]
5 Jun 2017, 1:00 am
R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor, heard 27-28 Mar 2017. [read post]
12 Nov 2021, 1:46 am
” Lord Reed stated that s 101(2) could not have been intended to enable the courts to rewrite provisions which were, on their face, unambiguously outside legislative competence. [read post]
10 Apr 2019, 4:52 pm
The appeal was considered by Lord Reed, Lord Kerr, Lady Black, Lord Briggs and Lord Kitchin. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 2:58 am
The Fab Five are Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lady Hale of Richmond, Lord Mance of Frognal and Lord Collins of Mapesbury, of whom one (Lord Walker) has served time on the Patents Court and another (Lord Collins) has presided over a pretty robust bit of patent litigation himself. [read post]
3 Oct 2014, 9:44 am
R (SG & Ors) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, heard 29-30 April. [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 3:23 pm
In a dramatically divided but decisively 6-3 decision in Kirtsaeng v. [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 3:23 pm
In a dramatically divided but decisively 6-3 decision in Kirtsaeng v. [read post]
29 Jul 2007, 10:17 am
Lord Halifax, the Secretary of State, issued a general warrant to four messengers to “search for the authors, printers, and publishers of seditious and treasonable paper. [read post]
3 Jul 2017, 1:00 am
R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor, heard 27-28 Mar 2017. [read post]
21 Jun 2016, 9:50 am
Lord Neuberger gave the only judgment. [read post]
28 Apr 2019, 7:45 am
In Janssen v Teva (2009) the Federal Circuit stated that mere plausibility does not suffice to meet this requirement, if it did then patents could be obtained for little more than “respectable guesses”. [read post]
