Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 1621 - 1640
of 4,050
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Aug 2015, 2:00 am
Lord Neuberger and Lord Dyson referred to the four-limb test for proportionality in respect of interference with Convention rights as espoused by Lord Reed in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No. 2) [2013] UKSC 39. [read post]
11 Aug 2015, 2:00 am
Lord Kerr is critical of affording the state a margin of appreciation where it has not properly evaluated the issues at stake. [read post]
10 Aug 2015, 4:55 am
Also see R (SG) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKSC 16, at paras 105-106 [read post]
10 Aug 2015, 1:00 am
Lord Sumption also disagreed with the Chancellor at first instance and stated that some activities conducted by a company in liquidation may satisfy the definition. [read post]
9 Aug 2015, 9:55 am
And I guess a more articulate way of thinking about it is that Brady v. [read post]
8 Aug 2015, 4:27 am
Lord Templeman stated: “My Lords, twin-tape recorders, fast or slow, and single-tape recorders, in addition to their recording and playing functions, are capable of copying on to blank tape, directly or indirectly, records which are broadcast, records on discs and records on tape. [read post]
6 Aug 2015, 5:09 am
In the case of Pham (formerly “B2”), Lord Neuberger PSC, Lady Hale DPSC and Lord Mance, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed and Lord Carnwath JJSC unanimously dismissed the suspected terrorist’s appeal. [read post]
5 Aug 2015, 2:06 am
Lord Toulson stated that denying Mr Hunt his costs and ordering him to pay the other party’s costs could be a serious public interest issue. [read post]
4 Aug 2015, 2:16 am
Supreme Court The appeal was heard before the Supreme Court on 29 June before Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption and Lord Reed. [read post]
3 Aug 2015, 5:10 am
This, the Court of Appeal stated, could be somewhat discounted because "clinicians are not formulators. [read post]
2 Aug 2015, 12:37 pm
” RBKC’s review upheld suitability, stating: “42. [read post]
1 Aug 2015, 4:40 pm
In Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [2005] 1 AC 253, the House of Lords provided some flexibility in respect of the interpretation of the term “likely” here but the judge considered simply that he had to show that “the defendant is likely to fail to establish one of the statutory defences”. [read post]
1 Aug 2015, 2:36 pm
See A and B v Rotherham MBC [2014] EWFC 47 Fam. [read post]
29 Jul 2015, 3:54 am
Lord Hale stated the appellant was clearly entitled to a declaration that the application of the settlement criterion breached her rights under art 14 and A2P1 of the convention. [read post]
29 Jul 2015, 3:53 am
Article L.851-3 starts by stating that the processing should not allow the identification of individuals. [read post]
29 Jul 2015, 3:49 am
In giving the lead majority judgment Lord Sumption stated that the conditions for liability to the tax charge in ss 591C(4)-(6A) of the Act only make sense on the footing that the “cessation of the approval of the scheme” is the effective date of the withdrawal of the approval and not the date of the notice itself. [read post]
29 Jul 2015, 3:00 am
Giving the lead judgment Lord Reed stated that the decisions taken to authorise the segregation under the Prison Rules 1999, rule 45(2), was not taken by the Secretary of State but instead by a senior prison officer. [read post]
29 Jul 2015, 2:36 am
Lord Gill and Lord Neuberger also gave separate concurring judgments. [read post]
26 Jul 2015, 4:05 pm
They claim that GCHQ has intercepted their communications in breach of the Wilson doctrine, which was thought to prohibit the agencies from eavesdropping on MPs or members of the House of Lords. [read post]
25 Jul 2015, 4:30 am
The latest episode of the UK saga “and what do we do with data retention laws” has been issued by the English High Court, with its judgement in the case David Davis and Ors v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 2092 (Admin). [read post]
