Search for: "Hale v. Harm"
Results 161 - 180
of 226
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 May 2012, 2:02 pm
Lady Hale gave the leading judgment and she argued that s 177(1) now extends to harmful or abusive action at large. [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]
21 Mar 2012, 10:28 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]
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]
14 Mar 2012, 6:11 am
In MacLennan the court focussed on four of Lady Hale’s propositions; 1. [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 1:33 am
Savage; Powell v United Kingdom [2000] 30 EHRR CD 362). [read post]
12 Feb 2012, 1:16 pm
Subsequent case law has found that the duty might (depending on the facts of specific cases) apply to the following situations: prison authorities protecting inmates from harm from other prisoners [Edwards v UK (2002) 36 EHRR 487], or from suicide [Keenan v UK (2001) 33 EHRR 913]; immigrants in administrative detention [Slimani v France (2006) 43 EHRR 49]; military conscripts [Lilinc V Turkey (App. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 5:13 am
Right now, I have to catch a flight… but tune in later for further commentary on: How the California State Bar has done irreparable harm to the people and to the economy of California. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 3:54 am
Comment This case is significant for two reasons: First, it tasks the Supreme Court with answering the question raised obiter by Lady Hale in Savage v South Essex NHS Trust [2009] 1 AC 653, namely “what is the extent of the state’s duty to protect all people against an immediate risk of self-harm? [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 1:42 am
Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-operative Ltd (Rev 1) [2011] UKSC 32What happens to a lease for an uncertain term? [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 1:42 am
Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-operative Ltd (Rev 1) [2011] UKSC 32What happens to a lease for an uncertain term? [read post]
23 Aug 2011, 2:56 pm
Furthermore, Texas was the focal point of Wilkerson's posts and of any harm suffered. [read post]
10 Jul 2011, 2:02 pm
The second appeal in the Supreme Court this week is In the matter of Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander Limited (in administration) and In the matter of the Insolvency Act 1986 which is to be heard on Wednesday 13 and Thursday 14 July 2011 by Lord Hope, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Collins of Mapesbury and Lord Clarke. [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]
15 Jun 2011, 12:50 am
There was no indication that the interests and welfare of E’s two younger sisters had been taken into account, and no reference was made to the concern that delays in therapy would be harmful to the children. [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 3:29 am
Article 13(b) mitigates that obligation if there is a “grave risk” of “physical or psychological harm. [read post]
27 May 2011, 2:54 am
The Supreme Court The appeal has been heard by Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lady Hale of Richmond, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore and Sir Nicholas Wilson. [read post]
24 May 2011, 10:55 pm
By the time the Court of Appeal came to hear AP’s immigration appeal, he had committed a further offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, although this was immaterial for the purposes of the appeal. [read post]
24 May 2011, 8:40 am
On 9 March 2011, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the joint appeal of Sienkiewicz v Grief (UK) Ltd; Knowsley MBC v Willmore [2011] UKSC 10. [read post]
23 May 2011, 8:44 am
This was the riddle that recently occupied a nine-judge panel of the Supreme Court in R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] UKSC 18. [read post]
