Search for: "People v Lord" Results 161 - 180 of 1,802
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Feb 2009, 8:16 am
The House of Lords Opinions in Holmes-Moorhouse v LB Richmond upon Thames [2009] UKHL 7 were handed down today. [read post]
8 Apr 2011, 1:17 am by Adam Wagner
He goes on to discuss the now infamous hunting ban case, R (Jackson) v Her Majesty’s Attorney-General. [read post]
5 Nov 2010, 7:15 am by INFORRM
Bryan Cave associate Robert Dougans, who acted for science writer Simon Singh in BCA v Singh and for blogger Dave Osler in Kaschke v Osler, raised a theme that was reflected by a number of contributors: the new difficulties created by the internet. [read post]
21 Dec 2023, 4:19 pm by INFORRM
These are people who have used their financial might with the assistance of some greedy lawyers to stop the truth from getting into the public domain. [read post]
31 Jan 2011, 10:00 pm by 1 Crown Office Row
The Court of Appeal yesterday handed down judgment in the case of JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd ([2011] EWCA Civ 42). [read post]
24 Jul 2017, 1:16 am by Steve Cornforth
My rant was all about the price of justice v the value of justice. [read post]
2 Oct 2014, 5:07 pm by INFORRM
” (Hayes v Willoughby [2013] UKSC 17) – read David Hart’s post on this case for a detailed exposition of Lord Sumption’s analysis of the ingredients of harassment. [read post]
9 Aug 2017, 3:09 am by AIDAN WILLS MATRIX
The intrusion associated with the (re)publication to the wider public of information revealed to a small number of people in open court is likely to be qualitatively different. [read post]
14 Nov 2017, 2:00 am by ELLIOT GOLD
The test of dishonesty is as set out by Lord Nicholls in Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan and by Lord Hoffmann in Barlow Clowes… When dishonesty is in question the fact-finding tribunal must first ascertain (subjectively) the actual state of the individual’s knowledge or belief as to the facts. [read post]
7 Feb 2019, 4:47 pm by INFORRM
A nice summary of the meaning of these requirements in the context of criminal law provisions was provided by Lord Hope in R (Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2010] 1 AC 345, at paragraph 41: Accessibility means that an individual must know from the wording of the relevant provision and, if need be, with the assistance of the court’s interpretation of it what acts and omissions will make him criminally liable: see also Gülmez v Turkey… [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 9:09 am by AYESHA CHRISTIE, MATRIX
Lord Reed adds a further category of persons to whom a “less stringent approach” to precariousness might be appropriate: people who “might be under a reasonable misapprehension as to their ability to maintain a family life in the UK”. [read post]
25 Sep 2019, 4:41 pm
”   A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 1 AC 68, Lord Bingham. [read post]
12 Jul 2018, 6:19 am by Brian Cordery
The panel included two of the Supreme Court Judges who had decided Actavis – Lord Neuberger and Lord Sumption as well as leading patents judges from Germany, the Netherlands and the US and attracted an audience of over 600 people. [read post]
23 May 2021, 4:08 pm by INFORRM
The statement highlights the strong overlap between promoting and protecting competition in digital markets and safeguarding people’s data. [read post]
29 Jul 2013, 10:00 am by Dan Ernst
The Jones and Harry opinions echo, without citation, Lord Mansfield's words in Somerset v. [read post]
6 Dec 2016, 1:45 am by Blog Editorial
  Lord Pannick QC says it is no answer for the Government to say that the long title to the 1972 Act “says nothing about withdrawal“. 16:04: Lord Pannick QC refers to the case of Robinson v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, which he submits supports a “flexible response” to constitutional developments. [read post]
9 Nov 2016, 1:47 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
Permission to appeal has been granted by a panel of three Justices (Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance and Lord Kerr) and the case can now proceed to a full hearing. [read post]