Search for: "Catt v. Catt"
Results 1 - 20
of 45
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Mar 2015, 9:18 am
” Lord Sumption distinguished the facts of Mr Catt’s appeal from those in MM v United Kingdom, and the decision of the Supreme Court in R (T) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, in that: “[t]here has been no disclosure to third parties, and the prospect of future disclosure is limited by comprehensive restrictions. [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 4:16 pm
John Catt has indicated that he will take the case to the European Court of Human Rights – historically the court has been far stricter on the requirement of accordance with the law and therefore far less willing to allow the state wide discretionary powers where privacy and surveillance are concerned, resulting in a series of rulings against the UK – see Malone v UK (1984), Hewitt v UK (1992), Liberty & Others v UK (2008), S &… [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 3:09 am
In the case of Mr Catt, the Supreme Court found, inter alia, that the interference with Mr Catt’s private life had been minor. [read post]
8 Apr 2015, 2:07 am
Such a matter was recently considered by the UK Supreme Court in R (Catt and T) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2015] UKSC 9. [read post]
31 May 2012, 6:56 am
Catt’s appearance and dress. [read post]
9 Jun 2019, 9:44 pm
By Donald Zuhn -- In April, in Intellectual Ventures II, LLC v. [read post]
9 Jun 2019, 9:44 pm
By Donald Zuhn -- In April, in Intellectual Ventures II, LLC v. [read post]
1 Jun 2012, 1:50 am
“Catt v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis [2012] EWHC 1471. [read post]
30 Nov 2014, 3:58 pm
Catt v Association of Chief Police Officers (2013) - Judgment John Catt was the second individual to challenge FIT surveillance in the courts. [read post]
30 Nov 2014, 3:58 pm
Catt v Association of Chief Police Officers (2013) - Judgment John Catt was the second individual to challenge FIT surveillance in the courts. [read post]
23 Sep 2020, 3:01 pm
County (2013) and NFIB v. [read post]
23 Dec 2021, 5:28 am
However, the Indiana Court of Appeals (reluctantly so) relied on Indiana Supreme Court precedent in Catt v. [read post]
4 Mar 2021, 7:23 am
In two recent cases dealing with governmental immunity for losses caused by temporary conditions of roadways resulting from weather, the Indiana Court of Appeals has questioned and raised concerns with the Indiana Supreme Court’s analytical framework set forth in the 2002 decision of Catt v. [read post]
20 May 2008, 8:28 am
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Flynn & Anor, R v [2008] EWCA Crim 970 (02 May 2008) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) B v B [2008] EWCA Civ 483 (12 May 2008) G, R (on the application of) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust [2008] EWCA Civ 1096 (20 May 2008) W (Children) [2008] EWCA Civ 538 (20 May 2008) TH v RB [2008] EWCA Civ 539 (20 May 2008) SB v County Council [2008] EWCA Civ 535 (20 May 2008) Romantiek Transport BVba & Ors… [read post]
31 May 2012, 3:11 am
& Ors v HX Investments Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 708 (31 May 2012) Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc [2012] EWCA Civ 729 (30 May 2012) De Brito & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 709 (30 May 2012) QEB Metallics Ltd v Peerzada & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 728 (30 May 2012) AL (Albania) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 710 (30 May 2012) HM Revenue and Customs v Forde and… [read post]
20 Jun 2007, 10:34 am
We last explored the application of this section in Catt v. [read post]
4 Feb 2015, 4:10 pm
Perhaps by further legal clarification he is referring to the Supreme Court’s impending judgment in the Catt v ACPO case? [read post]
17 Jan 2024, 3:32 pm
Overaker is still at large.Sottile and Catt intersperse conversations with Dibee, who awaits and finally gets his day in court, with interviews of the fugitives’ former associates and those in the justice system tasked with bringing the fugitives to justice. [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 12:40 am
Catt v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2012] EWHC 1471 (Admin) (30 May 2012). [read post]
11 Mar 2015, 4:30 am
Test for obviousness set out in Newco Tank Corp. v. [read post]
