Search for: "Barclay v Barclay" Results 1 - 20 of 517
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Jun 2007, 2:16 am
Employees’ free advice compensation is chargeable to income tax Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Barclays Bank plc Court of Appeal “Payments to former employees of a bank to compensate them for the termination of an arrangement to provide them with a free tax advice service were made in connection with past service and were chargeable to income tax as relevant benefits requiring the bank to account to the Revenue for the tax under the pay-as-you-earn… [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 2:16 am
Barclay v British Airways plc Court of Appeal “A passenger slipping on a plastic strip embedded in the floor of an aircraft was not an accident since there was no distinct event which was not part of the usual, normal and expected operation of the aircraft and which had happened independently of anything done or omitted [...] [read post]
20 Oct 2009, 2:08 am
Earles v Barclays Bank plc Queen’s Bench Division “Although there was no duty on parties to preserve documents before proceedings commenced, after that the situation was radically different. [read post]
2 Oct 2014, 2:48 am by Emma Cross
  [1] R (Barclay) v Secretary of State for Justice & Ors [2009] UKSC 9 [2] R (Barclay & Anor) v Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, The Committee for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey and Her Ma [read post]
6 Jan 2009, 1:38 am
Barclay v British Airways plc [2008] EWCA Civ 1419; [2008] WLR (D) 412 “Where a passenger slipped on a standard fitting plastic strip embedded in the floor of an aircraft in its normal state and sustained bodily injury, there was no ‘accident’ within the meaning of art 17.1 of the Montreal Convention 1999 since there was [...] [read post]
30 Oct 2009, 3:17 am
Earles v Barclays Bank plc [2009] EWHC 2500 (Mercantile); [2009] WLR (D) 309 “Although there was no duty on the parties to preserve documents prior to the commencement of proceedings, after proceedings had begun, the situation was radically different. [read post]
10 Dec 2010, 2:18 am by traceydennis
Barclays Bank plc v Guy [2010] EWCA Civ 1396; [2010] WLR (D) 321 “Where an application was made to reopen a refusal of permission to appeal by the Court of Appeal, the criteria to be applied should be the same as where application was made, pursuant to CPR r 52.17(1), to reopen a final judgment reached after a full trial. [read post]
4 Dec 2008, 10:31 am
R (Barclay and others) v Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice and others [2008] EWCA Civ 1319; [2008] WLR (D) 376 “The Reform (Sark) Law 2008, which, inter alia, provided, in relation to the Island of Sark, a Crown Dependency and a part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, for the Seneschal, the senior judge [...] [read post]
5 Dec 2008, 9:50 am
Regina (Barclay and Others) v Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice and Others Court of Appeal “Proposed reform of the constitution of the Channel Island of Sark which allowed the Seneschal, appointed by the Seigneur, to be both a member of the legislature and the chief judge, contravened article 6 of the European Convention on [...] [read post]
2 Feb 2008, 5:18 pm
As I posted back in October, the Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit reinstated Khulumani v. [read post]
19 Nov 2012, 1:27 am
  At a hearing three weeks ago, a UK High Court judge set that month as the date for trial in Graiseley Properties Limited v. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 2:51 am by tracey
Financial Services Authority v Sinaloa Gold plc and others (Barclays Bank plc intervening) [2011] EWCA Civ 1158;  [2011] WLR (D)  295 “When obtaining an injunction the Financial Services Authority should not normally be required to give an undertaking in damages to third parties, beyond an undertaking to cover the costs incurred in complying with the injunction.” WLR Daily, 18th october 2011 Source: www.iclr.co.uk [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 3:46 am
R (Barclay and others) v The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice and others [2009] UKSC 9; [2009] WLR (D) 349 "The presence of two unelected non-voting members in the legislature of the Channel Island of Sark, which had 28 democratically elected voting members, did not contravene art 3 of the First Protocol to [...] [read post]