Search for: "Goods v. Enfield"
Results 1 - 18
of 18
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Mar 2015, 1:26 pm
Enfield LBC v Najim (2015) CA (Civ Div) 04/03/2015 [Note on Lawtel and here. [read post]
23 Mar 2013, 11:01 am
The case was LB Enfield v Phoenix and others, High Ct, March 19, 2013, and seemed to concern the circumstances in which a possession claim can properly be issued in the High Court. [read post]
23 Mar 2013, 11:01 am
The case was LB Enfield v Phoenix and others, High Ct, March 19, 2013, and seemed to concern the circumstances in which a possession claim can properly be issued in the High Court. [read post]
12 Oct 2010, 3:03 pm
Pieretti v London Borough of Enfield [2010] EWCA Civ 1104 This is an odd case, in lots of ways, but what is decided in this appeal to the Court of Appeal is potentially of broader significance and certainly useful as clarification. [read post]
11 Jul 2017, 1:55 pm
(Najim v London Borough of Enfield [2015] EWCA Civ 319; [2015] HLR 19) (…) The proper approach to be derived from such authorities, and Tranckle (R v Exeter City Council, ex p. [read post]
3 Mar 2016, 4:21 am
As a matter of ordinary language, this statement includes all compensation necessary to make good the loss caused by the damage to the relevant property. [read post]
2 Nov 2022, 10:00 am
The justices were active questioners and appeared to be in a good mood. [read post]
3 Feb 2009, 7:48 am
When 33-year-old Rogelio V. [read post]
8 May 2011, 3:25 pm
Lambeth had failed to do so with no good reason. [read post]
8 May 2011, 3:25 pm
Lambeth had failed to do so with no good reason. [read post]
7 Sep 2014, 1:57 pm
As you will also all recall in Pieretti v Enfield LBC [2010] EWCA Civ 1104 (our note here) the Court of Appeal held that the duty (under the previous equivalent provision s.49A, Disability Discrimination Act 1995) required a reviewing officer to carry out inquiries into an applicant’s disability that the Housing Act 1996 had not previously required, i.e. where the applicant had not raised the issue but the reviewing officer was on notice that there was a possibility that the… [read post]
1 Oct 2023, 6:30 am
Rather as the Australian High Court has noted in a different doctrinal context, the approach of the Court is a ‘product of ‘basic principles of administrative law respecting the exercise of discretionary powers’ (Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission [2000] HCA 5; 199 CLR 135, [44]). [read post]
23 Dec 2013, 1:26 am
It was argued by Mr Gill that for s.149 to be engaged, there does not have to be proof of the existence of a protected characteristic: it is engaged where it is not clear that such protected characteristic is relevant or where there is a likelihood of a person having a protected characteristic (reliance was placed on R(Greenwich Community Law Centre) v Greenwich LBC [2012] EWCA Civ 496 – a challenge to a decision by Greenwich to cease funding the community law centre- and R… [read post]
23 Dec 2013, 1:26 am
It was argued by Mr Gill that for s.149 to be engaged, there does not have to be proof of the existence of a protected characteristic: it is engaged where it is not clear that such protected characteristic is relevant or where there is a likelihood of a person having a protected characteristic (reliance was placed on R(Greenwich Community Law Centre) v Greenwich LBC [2012] EWCA Civ 496 – a challenge to a decision by Greenwich to cease funding the community law centre- and R… [read post]
23 Oct 2006, 3:43 am
London Borough of Enfield [2001] 2 AC 550, per Lord Browne-Wilkinson; this terminology was misunderstood by the ECtHR in Osman v. [read post]
13 Apr 2014, 12:23 pm
Vaughan v ML [read post]
13 Apr 2014, 12:23 pm
Vaughan v ML [read post]
18 Jul 2008, 8:34 am
: (Patent Circle), Tanzania to conduct study on impact of counterfeit medicines: (Afro-IP), US: New rules on generic biological medicines under US Congressional debate: (Intellectual Property Watch), Pharma & Biotech - Products Acular (Ketorolac) – US: CAFC rules against Apotex reverse doctrine of equivalents: Roche Palo Alto & Allergan, Inc v Apotex: (Patent Circle), Carbatrol (Carbamazapine) – US: Federal judge allows Corepharma to seek DJ that its… [read post]
