Search for: "In Interest of LJ"
Results 161 - 180
of 980
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 May 2009, 12:00 am
The invention itself, however, was not the interesting thing. [read post]
23 Dec 2013, 7:49 am
” Hopefully this will be the end of this interesting series of cases. [read post]
11 Dec 2007, 3:17 pm
Although the case itself is not that interesting, the judgment is worth a look as it gives a clear overview of the Court of Appeal’s current thinking in this area. [read post]
24 Nov 2011, 7:51 am
The majority (Rix LJ and Wall LJ) held that there was nothing to indicate the parties’ intentions had changed after their separation. [read post]
Case Preview: Protect Rural England (Kent) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
27 Jan 2021, 2:30 am
The Court of Appeal judgment[1] Issue one: costs where permission is refused Coulson LJ, with whom Hamblen LJ and David Richards LJ agreed, summarised the Court’s view on issue one at [37] by reference to three principles. [read post]
23 Dec 2013, 1:26 am
It was said on behalf of Mr Gill that, even if the Judge was wrong in his approach, the Court of Appeal, correctly applying s.149, should still refuse the application.Coleridge J gave the leading Judgment but it is the Judgment of Lewison LJ (agreed with by Richards LJ) which is of interest. [read post]
18 May 2020, 4:11 pm
Simon LJ first dealt with Stage One ([43] to [103]). [read post]
25 Jul 2023, 4:00 am
(ii) Manitou’s appeal Arnold LJ noted that the competing interests the Court needs to consider in assessing whether to permit the disclosure of otherwise confidential information are the public’s need to understand and scrutinise the reasoning provided by the Court on infringement on the one hand, and Manitou’s right to protect its trade secrets on the other. [read post]
4 Apr 2014, 9:14 am
A couple of notable quotes from the judgment: Davis LJ (para 39): The law of unintended consequences is no part of the law of England and Wales. [read post]
13 Nov 2015, 2:00 am
Indeed, as Tomlinson LJ observed, the period of inactivity was seven and a half months. [read post]
6 Nov 2019, 12:26 am
As Floyd LJ wondered in London Taxi: should one take into account or ignore the fact that consumers will recognise the shape? [read post]
8 Jun 2014, 1:51 pm
According to Lewison LJ, whether survey evidence should be admitted at all, comes down to whether the court is satisfied that the evidence is (a) likely to be of REAL value; and (b) that the likely value of the evidence justifies the cost (bold caps courtesy of Lewison LJ). [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 11:20 am
Deepak Mahajan and Anr., 1994 Cri LJ 2269; and Balkishan A. [read post]
10 Feb 2009, 2:45 pm
However, he, like Wilson LJ and Dyson LJ, agreed that this was a question for another day. [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 4:06 am
Further the Court of Appeal determined that Reuters’ criticism of the Judge’s reliance upon Lion Laboratories (and in particular Griffiths LJ’s comment in that it will only be “an exceptional case in which a defence of public interest which does not involve iniquity on the part of the plaintiff will justify refusing the injunction”) was misplaced. [read post]
1 Jun 2018, 12:43 am
Even so, the reasonableness question is not automatically resolved by the best interests assessment and Elias LJ held that: … If Parliament had wanted the child’s best interests to dictate the outcome of the leave application, it would have said so. [read post]
7 Aug 2024, 1:30 am
Arnold LJ and Birss LJ agreed with IDC that the first instance judgment suffered from an internal inconsistency: it identified a non-FRAND element in the comparable licences due to the reduction in value attributable to past sales, but failed to account for this in using the LG licence to derive a FRAND rate for Lenovo. [read post]
9 Feb 2010, 12:42 am
I’m sure the late Denning LJ would have had a field day with this one!! [read post]
5 Oct 2008, 2:20 pm
Forced disclosure of value added to the aggregate might be of interestâ€â [read post]
6 Oct 2010, 2:49 pm
It was the Court of Appeal decision in McKennitt v Ash [ 2008] QB 73 , comprising of Buxton LJ, Longmore LJ ( pictured) and Latham LJ, which first set out clearly the false privacy principles namely; The question in a case of misuse of private information is whether the information is private not whether it is true or false. [read post]
