Search for: "State v. Lord"
Results 1941 - 1960
of 3,609
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Nov 2022, 1:35 am
On Wednesday 23rd November, the Court will hand down judgment in the Reference by the Lord Advocate of devolution issues under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998 [2022] UKSC 31. [read post]
25 Apr 2016, 5:00 am
It is now clear that the subjects in charge of collecting the fair compensation for private copying (e.g. collective management organisations) can bring proceedings before the courts of the Member State where the harm arising from missed payments is felt. [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 3:58 pm
Now, in a refreshingly short and direct speech of just 37 paragraphs, Lord Sumption put things right. [read post]
17 May 2010, 5:49 am
Justice Clark read his opinion for the Court in United States v. [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 7:09 am
Lord Mance, in giving the lead judgment, stated that: “the only approach, consistent with the nature and underlying purpose of these insurances both before and after the [1969 Act], is one which looks to the initiation or causation of the accident or disease which injured the employee. [read post]
13 Aug 2012, 1:17 am
The fliers stated: "WARNING! [read post]
4 Dec 2011, 4:04 pm
On Monday 28 and Tuesday 29 November 2011 the Court of Appeal (Lord Judge LCJ, Lord Neuberger MR and Maurice Kay LJ) heard the appeals in Phillips v NGN and Coogan v NGN against orders of Mr Justice Vos in phone hacking claims (see [2011] EWHC 349 (Ch)). [read post]
13 Dec 2013, 8:41 am
Further, in NDMC v. [read post]
5 Mar 2016, 3:30 am
ZM v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Northern Ireland); HA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 12-14 January 2016. [read post]
18 Mar 2016, 8:30 am
The Christian Institute & Ors v The Lord Advocate (Scotland), heard 8-9 March 2016. [read post]
3 Dec 2017, 4:04 pm
” Data Privacy and Data Protection The House of Lords will be debating an amendment to the U.K. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 9:54 pm
The second school of thought, and one that has found increasing favour in recent years, is that a party may be deprived of costs in relation to a head of claim on which they have lost and regardless of whether they were “unreasonable” in pursuing that head: • In AEI Ltd v Phonographic Performance Limited [1999] 1 WLR 1507, Lord Woolf MR stated at 1523H: “…it is no longer necessary for a party to have acted unreasonably or improperly to be… [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 2:30 pm
The celebration of two decades of the House of Lords patent biopatent ruling in Biogen v Medeva, hosted by Rouse, is happily recorded on PatLit by Rouseniks Mary Smillie and Catriona Smith. [read post]
22 Jul 2010, 5:00 am
The judge stated clearly that the Al Rawi principles applied in the current case. [read post]
27 Jun 2009, 8:42 pm
He cites Lord Scarman's views expressed in his opinion in R v. [read post]
5 Oct 2011, 3:24 am
In their submissions to the Expert Group, the Scottish Government and the Lord Advocate had called for appeals to the Supreme Court in criminal cases to be ended altogether, so Salmond was no doubt hoping that this is what the Review Group (headed by Lord McCluskey) would recommend. [read post]
11 Mar 2016, 5:34 am
The Christian Institute & Ors v The Lord Advocate (Scotland), heard 8-9 March 2016. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 9:41 am
In his reference, the Judge trotted through the English court's and CJEU's case law Article 3(a) - Takeda, Farmitalia, Daiichi, Yeda, Medeva (and its progeny), Actavis v Sanofi, Eli Lilly v HGS, Actavis v Boehringer, - and found that it was clear that something more was required, but what that "something" was was not clear. [read post]
30 Apr 2010, 4:22 pm
There was already a possession order and, on the state of the law at that time (pre Knowsley HT v White in the House of Lords), there could be no legitimate expectation of getting an assured tenancy as the AST would have been ended. [read post]
30 Apr 2010, 4:22 pm
There was already a possession order and, on the state of the law at that time (pre Knowsley HT v White in the House of Lords), there could be no legitimate expectation of getting an assured tenancy as the AST would have been ended. [read post]
