Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 1741 - 1760
of 4,050
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Mar 2015, 5:41 pm
As Lord Browne-Wilkinson said in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Pierson [1998] AC 539: A power conferred by Parliament in general terms is not to be taken to authorise the doing of acts by the donee of the power which adversely affect the legal rights of the citizen or the basic principles on which the law of the United Kingdom is based unless the statute conferring the power makes it clear that such was the intention of Parliament. [read post]
28 Mar 2015, 4:13 am
Current TPP negotiation member states are the United States, Japan, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, New Zealand and Brunei. [read post]
27 Mar 2015, 8:29 am
” [9] The Court also noted that the English courts (in subsequent cases such as Pearce v United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust and Chester v Afshar) had quietly ceased to follow Sidaway‘s adoption of the Bolam test. [read post]
26 Mar 2015, 12:57 pm
A familiar sight for lawyersinvolved in TVCatchup suitsITV Broadcasting Limited, ITV 2 Limited, ITV Digital Channels Limited, Channel Four Television Corporation, 4 Ventures Limited, Channel 5 Broadcasting Limited and ITV Studios Limited v TVCatchup Limited (in administration), TVCatchup (UK) Limited and Media Resources Limited (a Mauritian company) [2015] EWCA Civ 204 is the latest development in the long-running copyright litigation saga which is usually known by its shorter name of ITV… [read post]
26 Mar 2015, 3:35 am
Lord Neuberger stated that the FOIA 2000, s 53, does not permit the Attorney General to override the decision of a judicial tribunal or Court by issuing a certificate merely because he, considering the same facts and arguments, takes a different view from that taken by the tribunal or Court. [read post]
25 Mar 2015, 3:17 am
Giving the leading judgment Lord Carnwath reasoned that reference had to be made to the government’s practice as well as the text of the nationality law of the state in question. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 4:30 am
United States, 333 US 46 (1948), the United States Supreme Court ruled that res ipsa loquitur applied in Jesionowski v. [read post]
22 Mar 2015, 4:00 am
The plea of duress is a plea of “a coercion of the will so as to vitiate consent” (per Lord Scarman in Pao On v. [read post]
20 Mar 2015, 2:41 pm
As Justice McReynolds famously said in Pierce v Society of Sisters 268 US 510 (1925), at 535, “The child is not the mere creature of the State”. [read post]
18 Mar 2015, 9:57 am
The unchallenged findings in fact of the Lord Ordinary stated that the pursuer either did not look to her left at all or failed to identify and react sensibly to the presence of the defender’s car. [read post]
18 Mar 2015, 4:01 am
Expanding on the Supreme Court’s decision on the first argument, Lord Clarke stated that the only question is whether the maps were drawn to a scale of not less than 1:25,000 and held that they were. [read post]
18 Mar 2015, 3:52 am
Lord Neuberger, giving the dissenting judgment, stated that the Court’s approach when reviewing this decision should be similar to that of an appellate court reviewing a trial judge’s decision. [read post]
18 Mar 2015, 3:38 am
Lord Reed, giving the leading judgment, stated that the question was whether the established indirect discrimination was a proportionate means of meeting legitimate aims. [read post]
16 Mar 2015, 10:00 am
Lord Neuberger stated therefore that the issue of whether the 1999 Act costs regime infringed the Convention “is open to this Court to reconsider”, but that “it would be wrong for this Court to decide the point without the Government having had the opportunity to address the Court on the issue”. [read post]
16 Mar 2015, 8:35 am
In fact Lord Kerr did not as such reject the Secretary of State’s assessment of the risks to national security. [read post]
15 Mar 2015, 9:18 am
” Lord Sumption distinguished the facts of Mr Catt’s appeal from those in MM v United Kingdom, and the decision of the Supreme Court in R (T) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, in that: “[t]here has been no disclosure to third parties, and the prospect of future disclosure is limited by comprehensive restrictions. [read post]
12 Mar 2015, 9:04 am
United States. [read post]
12 Mar 2015, 8:16 am
The previous leading authority on “white list” designation was R (Javed) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] EWCA Civ 789. [read post]
12 Mar 2015, 5:46 am
I went back 99 years to Haas v. [read post]
