Search for: "Word v. Lord"
Results 161 - 180
of 2,054
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Apr 2015, 4:09 pm
It was largely on this binary issue that the House of Lords was divided: Lords Nicholls and Lord Hoffmann felt that there was a public interest in allowing newspapers to publish details about her treatment whilst Lord Hoffmann also thought there was in the photograph (Lord Nicholls felt there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in it) whilst Lords Hope and Carswell and Baroness Hale disagreed. [read post]
24 Nov 2011, 7:51 am
In this appeal (from [2010] EWCA Civ 578) – their Lordships were charged with revisiting the decision in Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 with a view to clarifying its reasoning. [read post]
14 Jan 2022, 2:17 am
This interpretation reflected the ordinary and natural meaning of the word and was in accordance with the purpose of the tort gateway. [read post]
20 Nov 2022, 1:33 pm
The name of the case is Thorner v. [read post]
19 Mar 2019, 3:15 am
Lord Wilson disagreed with two aspects of Sales LJ’s judgment, namely his very narrow construction of the word “trauma” in the protocol and his handling of Dr Zapata-Bravo’s oral evidence. [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 2:00 am
Lord Mance concluded that the meaning of the words judicial authority in the Framework Decision is “obscure” [246]. [read post]
15 Dec 2016, 6:06 am
Lady Hale (Lord Carnwath agreeing) dissented in relation to A. [read post]
8 Dec 2015, 9:17 am
Lord Carnwath was more sympathetic to Lord Hoffmann’s position. [read post]
20 May 2009, 4:28 pm
R (G) v Southwark [2009] UKHL 26 was the appeal to the House of Lords of this Court of Appeal judgment. [read post]
10 Mar 2023, 3:26 am
Lord Hamblen (with whom Lord Hodge, Lord Kitchin and Lord Sales agreed) gave the majority opinion of the court, with Lord Briggs dissenting. [read post]
22 Oct 2009, 10:17 pm
The case in question (cases, actually) is (i) Alan Grisbrook v MGN Ltd, Scottish Daily Record & Sunday Mail Ltd and Syndication International Ltd; (ii) Alan Grisbrook v MGN Ltd and Syndication International Ltd [2009] EWHC 2520 (Ch), a 16 October decision of Lord Justice Patten sitting as a Chancery Division judge. [read post]
15 Jul 2007, 5:53 pm
There is little a mere mortal such as I can give to the words given to Valvano from the Lord above. [read post]
22 Feb 2024, 8:08 am
Lord Leggatt, Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lady Rose made the majority decision. [read post]
22 May 2019, 4:58 pm
Relying on R (Cart) v The Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28, the majority noted that there is a strong interpretative presumption against the exclusion of judicial review, other than by “the most clear and explicit words” (Laws LJ in Cart at the Court of Appeal). [read post]
6 Nov 2010, 5:16 pm
Tugendhat J concluded that this was not a hard and fast rule: It does seem clear that the House of Lords [in Derbyshire] was contemplating that the right to sue of any individual who carried on the day to day management of the affairs of a governmental body was subject to no limitation other than the requirement that the words complained of should refer to, and be defamatory of, that individual. [read post]
28 Jun 2007, 10:03 am
IPKat flagged a question this week from Neal Macrossan, the inventor behind the high-profile Aerotel v Telco Holdings case on software patenting (in essence, should Macrossan appeal to the House of Lords?). [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 12:30 am
In the admirably brief Court of Appeal decision just out - Actavis UK Ltd & Others v Eli Lilly & Company [2015] EWCA Civ 555 (25 June 2015) , Lord Justice Floyd (Lord Justice Kitchin and Lord Justice Longmore concurring) disagreed with Arnold J on two main issues - one on which nothing turns in the end (although it has important wider significance), and one which has the result that this case seems set to run and run.The claimBut let's recap a… [read post]
18 Jan 2017, 7:28 am
A Victory for Clarity: R v Golds and the meaning of ‘substantial’ in the context of diminished responsibility Rarely is the definition of a word more important than when it will determine the outcome of a murder trial. [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 1:33 am
The principle espoused by Lord Bingham in R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] 2 AC 323 should not mean that the domestic courts are bound to a course of inaction. [read post]
Hanging By A Thread: Reportage and Clause 4 of the Defamation Bill – Sophie Walker and Jason Bosland
11 Feb 2013, 4:00 am
Nor is the distinction reflected in wording of clause 4(2). [read post]
