Search for: "Brown v. Hale"
Results 21 - 40
of 165
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Feb 2010, 4:58 am
Re W (Children) [2010] UKSC 12 SC (Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr) March 3 2010 The facts of this case are set out in the report of the Court of Appeal judgment below. [read post]
19 Jun 2011, 10:19 am
This will be heard by Lord Walker, Lady Hale and Lords Mance, Collins and Clarke. [read post]
20 Feb 2012, 5:22 am
Four linked cases will also be starting on 21 February in Court Room 2 in front of L Phillips, L Hale, L Mance, L Kerr, and L Wilson. [read post]
6 Mar 2011, 12:29 pm
From Monday 7 to Wednesday 9 March 2011, Lords Phillips and Walker, Lady Hale, and Lords Mance and Collins will hear Lucasfilm Limited and others v Ainsworth and another. [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 2:52 am
This week the Supreme Court will hear Russell and others v Transocean International Resources Limited (Scotland) over two days commencing on Wednesday 26 October by Lords Hope, Brown, Mance, Kerr and Wilson. [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 2:52 am
This week the Supreme Court will hear Russell and others v Transocean International Resources Limited (Scotland) over two days commencing on Wednesday 26 October by Lords Hope, Brown, Mance, Kerr and Wilson. [read post]
20 Apr 2020, 3:26 am
Alaina Wadsworth, Chris Horsefield and Ben Brown, who all work within the Insurance & Reinsurance Group at CMS, comment on the decision handed down by the UK Supreme Court earlier this month, in the matter of Barclays Bank Plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13: Earlier this month, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the matter of Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13. [read post]
30 Mar 2011, 8:02 am
This was one of the issues that was (as Lord Hope explained) decided in Watson v M’Ewan? [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 1:33 am
Savage; Powell v United Kingdom [2000] 30 EHRR CD 362). [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 8:53 am
Reasoning Although Baroness Hale made it look relatively easy, this result was rather more difficult to achieve (as is clear from Lords Rodger and Brown’s judgments). [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 4:06 am
Brown and J. [read post]
1 Sep 2014, 4:21 am
The post Case Comment: R (Whiston) v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] UKSC 39 appeared first on UKSCBlog. [read post]
31 Jan 2017, 8:17 am
Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011). [read post]
15 Jun 2012, 3:35 am
Decision of the Supreme Court Dismissing the appeal, the majority of Lords Walker, Brown, Mance and Wilson held that the standard of ‘knowledge’ required pursuant to s 11(4) had been acquired by the claimants sufficiently early so as to render most (nine out of ten) of the claims time-barred under the Act. [read post]
15 Jun 2012, 3:35 am
Decision of the Supreme Court Dismissing the appeal, the majority of Lords Walker, Brown, Mance and Wilson held that the standard of ‘knowledge’ required pursuant to s 11(4) had been acquired by the claimants sufficiently early so as to render most (nine out of ten) of the claims time-barred under the Act. [read post]
10 Jul 2011, 2:02 pm
The Supreme Court will hear two appeals this week commencing with the two day hearing of R v Gnango on Monday 11 and Tuesday 12 July 2011 to be heard by Lords Phillips, Brown, Judge, Kerr, Clarke, Dyson and Wilson. [read post]
24 May 2011, 8:40 am
On 9 March 2011, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the joint appeal of Sienkiewicz v Grief (UK) Ltd; Knowsley MBC v Willmore [2011] UKSC 10. [read post]
20 Mar 2011, 5:31 am
On Monday 21 and Tuesday 22 March, Lords Hope, Rodger, Brown, Kerr and Dyson will hear the devoluation appeal of Fraser v Her Majesty’s Advocate. [read post]
23 May 2011, 8:44 am
In the Supreme Court the majority (Lord Phillips, Lord Hope, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr and Lord Clarke) preferred a broader construction than the minority (Lord Judge, Lord Brown, Lord Rodger and Lord Walker) would have adopted. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 3:29 am
By a majority (Lords Hope, Walker and Lady Hale dissenting), the court held that the fact that the appellants would have been lawfully detained was relevant to damages rather than to liability. [read post]
